Great! Thanks everyone for the help! -Justin On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 11:58 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 08:24:30PM +0000, Justin Tobler via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > >> - # the new branch should not have been created upstream > >> - test_must_fail git -C "$d" show-ref --verify refs/heads/atomic && > >> - > >> - # upstream should still reflect atomic2, the last thing we pushed > >> - # successfully > >> - git rev-parse atomic2 >expected && > >> - # ...to other. > >> - git -C "$d" rev-parse refs/heads/other >actual && > >> - test_cmp expected actual && > >> - > >> - # the new branch should not have been created upstream > >> + # The atomic and other branches should be created upstream. > >> test_must_fail git -C "$d" show-ref --verify refs/heads/atomic && > >> + test_must_fail git -C "$d" show-ref --verify refs/heads/other && > > > > This last comment should say "should not be created", I think? > > > > Other than that, both patches look good to me. > > Thanks. Will queue with the following and "Acked-by: peff". > > diff --git c/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh w/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh > index 9a8bed6c32..71428f3d5c 100755 > --- c/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh > +++ w/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh > @@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ test_expect_success 'push --atomic fails on server-side errors' ' > # --atomic should cause entire push to be rejected > test_must_fail git push --atomic "$up" atomic other 2>output && > > - # The atomic and other branches should be created upstream. > + # The atomic and other branches should not be created upstream. > test_must_fail git -C "$d" show-ref --verify refs/heads/atomic && > test_must_fail git -C "$d" show-ref --verify refs/heads/other && > >
