Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Curious what your thoughts are on an effort to isolate these tests from each other.
>> I like your approach in t/t1417 in creating a test repo and copying it over each time.
>> Something like this?
>
> That looks good to me if you're willing to do that legwork, probably
> better in a preceding cleanup commit.
Yup. Thanks for helping other contributors. I agree with many
things you said in your review.
>> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
>> index ac345eced8cb..40254f8dc99c 100755
>> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
>> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
>> @@ -41,7 +41,9 @@ diff_cmp () {
>> rm -f "$1.compare" "$2.compare"
>> }
>>
>> -test_expect_success 'stash some dirty working directory' '
>> +test_expect_success 'setup' '
>> + git init repo &&
>> + cd repo &&
We do not want to "chdir" around without isolating it in a
subprocess. If this test fails after it goes to "repo" but before it
does "cd ..", the next test begins in the "repo" directory, but it
is most likely not expecting that.
>> -cat >expect <<EOF
>> -diff --git a/file b/file
>> -index 0cfbf08..00750ed 100644
>> ---- a/file
>> -+++ b/file
>> -@@ -1 +1 @@
>> --2
>> -+3
>> -EOF
>> +test_stash () {
>> + cp -R repo copy &&
>> + cd copy &&
>> + test_expect_success "$@" &&
>> + cd ../ &&
>> + rm -rf copy
>> +}
This will create an anti-pattern, because you would want to have the
part between "cd copy" and "cd .." in a subshell, but you do not
want to do test_expect_success inside a subshell. Hence, this is a
bad helper that does not help and should not be used, I would think.
>> -test_expect_success 'parents of stash' '
>> +test_stash 'parents of stash' '
>> test $(git rev-parse stash^) = $(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
>> git diff stash^2..stash >output &&
>> diff_cmp expect output
>> '
>
> For this sort of thing I think it's usually better to override
> "test_expect_success" as a last resort, i.e. to have that
> "test_setup_stash_copy" just be a "setup_stash" or whatever function
> called from within your test_expect_success.
>
> And instead of the "rm -rf" later, just do:
>
> test_when_finished "rm -rf copy" &&
> cp -R repo copy &&
> [...]
Yup. I think this is how we would write it:
test_expect_success 'parents of stash' '
test_when_finished "rm -fr copy" &&
cp -R repo copy &&
(
cd copy &&
... the real body of the test here, like ...
test $(git rev-parse stash^) = $(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
)
'
> The test still needs to deal with the sub-repo, but it could cd or use
> "-C".
I am not sure about this. test_expect_success does not take "-C".
