On 2023.04.28 13:26, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 2023.04.27 15:54, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > @@ -22,12 +33,12 @@ test_expect_success 'setup bare repo in worktree' ' > >> > ' > >> > > >> > test_expect_success 'safe.bareRepository unset' ' > >> > - expect_accepted -C outer-repo/bare-repo > >> > + expect_accepted_implicit -C outer-repo/bare-repo > >> > ' > >> > >> Perhaps futureproof this test piece by explicitly unsetting the > >> variable before starting the test? That way, this piece will not be > >> broken even if earlier tests gets modified to set some value to > >> safe.bareRepository in the future. > > > > Actually, explicitly setting the variable here is equivalent to the > > following test case, so I'll just remove this one. > > I meant explicitly UNsetting, though? Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. I've restored the test along with a test_unconfig line for V3; however, doesn't this just turn into a "change detector" test whose only purpose will be to fail if/when we change the default value for this config option?
