On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:56 PM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:33:11PM +0800, Jiang Xin wrote: > > From: Jiang Xin <zhiyou.jx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [snip] > > @@ -91,36 +85,61 @@ test_expect_success 'fetch porcelain output' ' > > git checkout force-updated && > > git reset --hard HEAD~ && > > test_commit --no-tag force-update-new && > > - FORCE_UPDATED_NEW=$(git rev-parse HEAD) && > > - > > - cat >expect <<-EOF && > > - - $MAIN_OLD $ZERO_OID refs/forced/deleted-branch > > - - $MAIN_OLD $ZERO_OID refs/unforced/deleted-branch > > - $MAIN_OLD $FAST_FORWARD_NEW refs/unforced/fast-forward > > - ! $FORCE_UPDATED_OLD $FORCE_UPDATED_NEW refs/unforced/force-updated > > - * $ZERO_OID $MAIN_OLD refs/unforced/new-branch > > - $MAIN_OLD $FAST_FORWARD_NEW refs/forced/fast-forward > > - + $FORCE_UPDATED_OLD $FORCE_UPDATED_NEW refs/forced/force-updated > > - * $ZERO_OID $MAIN_OLD refs/forced/new-branch > > - $MAIN_OLD $FAST_FORWARD_NEW refs/remotes/origin/fast-forward > > - + $FORCE_UPDATED_OLD $FORCE_UPDATED_NEW refs/remotes/origin/force-updated > > - * $ZERO_OID $MAIN_OLD refs/remotes/origin/new-branch > > - EOF > > - > > - # Execute a dry-run fetch first. We do this to assert that the dry-run > > - # and non-dry-run fetches produces the same output. Execution of the > > - # fetch is expected to fail as we have a rejected reference update. > > - test_must_fail git -C porcelain fetch \ > > - --porcelain --dry-run --prune origin $refspecs >actual && > > - test_cmp expect actual && > > - > > - # And now we perform a non-dry-run fetch. > > - test_must_fail git -C porcelain fetch \ > > - --porcelain --prune origin $refspecs >actual 2>stderr && > > - test_cmp expect actual && > > - test_must_be_empty stderr > > + FORCE_UPDATED_NEW=$(git rev-parse HEAD) > > ' > > > > +for opt in off on > > +do > > + case $opt in > > + on) > > + opt=--atomic > > + ;; > > + off) > > + opt= > > + ;; > > + esac > > Nit: you could also do `for opt in "--atomic" ""` directly to get rid of > this case statement. Not sure whether this is worth a reroll though, > probably not. Yes, your code is much simpler.
