On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:14 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 14 2022, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > From: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> > > [...] > > # Set up a strange condition of having a file edit > > - # outside of the sparse-checkout cone. This is just > > - # to verify that sparse-checkout and sparse-index > > - # behave the same in this case. > > + # outside of the sparse-checkout cone. We want to verify > > + # that all modes handle this the same, and detect the > > + # modification. > > write_script edit-content <<-\EOF && > > - mkdir folder1 && > > + mkdir -p folder1 && > > echo content >>folder1/a > > EOF > > - run_on_sparse ../edit-content && > > + run_on_all ../edit-content && > > The end-state of this series will pass its tests with this on top, only > the last "mkdir -p" you added for the ls-files test seems to do > anything: > > diff --git a/t/t1092-sparse-checkout-compatibility.sh b/t/t1092-sparse-checkout-compatibility.sh > index 2a04b532f91..160c119e17d 100755 > --- a/t/t1092-sparse-checkout-compatibility.sh > +++ b/t/t1092-sparse-checkout-compatibility.sh > @@ -639,7 +639,7 @@ test_expect_success 'update-index modify outside sparse definition' ' > # condition in which a `skip-worktree` enabled, outside-of-cone file > # exists on disk. It is used here to ensure `update-index` is stable > # and behaves predictably if such a condition occurs. > - run_on_sparse mkdir -p folder1 && > + run_on_sparse mkdir folder1 && > run_on_sparse cp ../initial-repo/folder1/a folder1/a && > run_on_all ../edit-contents folder1/a && > > @@ -665,7 +665,7 @@ test_expect_success 'update-index --add outside sparse definition' ' > EOF > > # Create folder1, add new file > - run_on_sparse mkdir -p folder1 && > + run_on_sparse mkdir folder1 && > run_on_all ../edit-contents folder1/b && > > # The *untracked* out-of-cone file is added to the index because it does > @@ -949,7 +949,7 @@ test_expect_success 'checkout-index outside sparse definition' ' > > run_on_sparse rm -rf folder1 && > echo test >new-a && > - run_on_sparse mkdir -p folder1 && > + run_on_sparse mkdir folder1 && > run_on_all cp ../new-a folder1/a && > > test_all_match test_must_fail git checkout-index --ignore-skip-worktree-bits -- folder1/a && > @@ -996,7 +996,7 @@ test_expect_success 'clean' ' > test_all_match git commit -m "ignore bogus files" && > > run_on_sparse mkdir folder1 && > - run_on_all mkdir -p deep/untracked-deep && > + run_on_all mkdir deep/untracked-deep && > run_on_all touch folder1/bogus && > run_on_all touch folder1/untracked && > run_on_all touch deep/untracked-deep/bogus && > > A bit nit-y I guess, but I do think tests are much easier to follow when > it's clear when we're doing initial setup v.s. using already set-up > data. In this case > > More importantnly I think between this and 19a0acc83e4 (t1092: test > interesting sparse-checkout scenarios, 2021-01-23) that introduced this > pattern there's a large foot-gun being left in place here by using these > "run_on_all" and "run_on_sparse" helpers to run POSIX tooling, as > opposed to git itself. > > Utilities like "mv", "rm", "mkdir" etc. are differently chatty between > platform, and this helper captures their stdout/stderr for a later > test_cmp. > > Now, I think actually there isn't a bug *now* because we clobber the > output, and seem to only call test_all_match() and other test_cmp > helpers right after we've run "git", not these POSIX utilities. > > But since all we want in those cases is just a "run these commands in > these N dirs" it would be good to split up the helper. Maybe, but that sounds like a comment on the series from 13 months ago rather than this series. It's somewhat orthogonal to what I'm doing here... ;-)
