Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> +test_expect_success 'drop stash reflog updates refs/stash' '
>> + git reset --hard &&
>> + git rev-parse refs/stash >expect &&
>> + echo 9 >file &&
>> + git stash &&
>> + git stash drop stash@{0} &&
>> + git rev-parse refs/stash >actual &&
>> + test_cmp expect actual
>> +'
>
> This one will be portable to the reftable backend.
>
>> +test_expect_success 'drop stash reflog updates refs/stash with rewrite' '
>
> But as I noted in <220222.86fsob88h7.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (but it
> was easy to miss) this test will need to depend on REFFILES. So just
> changing this line to:
>
> test_expect_success REFFILES 'drop stash[...]'
>
>> + git reset --hard &&
>> + echo 9 >file &&
>> + git stash &&
>> + oid="$(git rev-parse stash@{0})" &&
>> + git stash drop stash@{1} &&
>> + cut -d" " -f1-2 .git/logs/refs/stash >actual &&
>> + cat >expect <<-EOF &&
>> + $(test_oid zero) $oid
>> + EOF
>> + test_cmp expect actual
>> +'
Why should this be tested with "cut" in the first place, though?
If we start from
stash@{0} = A
stash@{1} = B
stash@{2} = C
and after saying "drop stash@{1}", what we need to check is that
stash@{0} = A
stash@{1} = C
now holds, which can be done with "git rev-parse", and the fact that
the ref-files backend happens to record both before-and-after object
IDs is an irrelevant implementation detail, no?
I am still puzzled.
