On Thu, Aug 18 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 8/18/2022 2:17 AM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> +test_expect_success 'rev-list --ancestry-path=F D..M' '
>> + test_write_lines E F J L M >expect &&
>> + git rev-list --ancestry-path=F --format=%s D..M |
>> + sed -e "/^commit /d" |
>> + sort >actual &&
>> + test_cmp expect actual
>> +'
>
> These tests follow the patterns from other tests in this file, but
> it also has bad patterns. Specifically, the 'git rev-list' command
> is fed directly into a pipe. I include a patch below that applies
> directly on this one to rewrite these tests. If you want, you could
> rebase to have that test refactor happen before you add your new
> --ancestry-path=<X> option tests.
Thanks, I was going to comment on the same, but your solution is much
better (I was just going to suggest using intermediate files).
> [...]
> -test_expect_success 'rev-list --ancestry-path D..M -- M.t' '
> - echo M >expect &&
> - git rev-list --ancestry-path --format=%s D..M -- M.t |
> - sed -e "/^commit /d" >actual &&
> - test_cmp expect actual
> -'
> +test_ancestry () {
> + args=$1
> + expected=$2
Maybe add &&-chaining here (we do it in some cases, but I'm not sure
when such assignments would ever fail).
> + test_expect_success "rev-list $args" "
> + test_write_lines $expected >expect &&
> + git rev-list --format=%s $args >raw &&
> +
> + if test -n \"$expected\"
Aren't you making things harder for yourself here than required by using
""-quoting for the body of the test.
We eval it into existence, so you can use ''-quotes, and then you don't
need to escape e.g. the "" quotes here for expected, no?
> + then
> + sed -e \"/^commit /d\" raw | sort >actual &&
nit for debuggability (and not correctness), maybe using intermediate
files here would be nicer? And then perhaps call them "actual" and
"actual.sorted".
> + test_cmp expect actual || return 1
No need for a "return 1" here when we're not in a loop. It's redundant,
and makes the -x output on failure confusing ("why didn't I fail on the
test_cmp, but on this stray return?...").
...
> + else
> + test_must_be_empty raw
...which would also allow you to extract much of this if/else at the
cost of not using test_must_be_empty, i.e. just make the "expected"
empty unless "$expected" is provided. Just a thought/nit, we could also
leave this as-is :)
Also does the "compare rev" part of this want test_cmp_rev instead?
