On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:31:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Good point about the naming. I'm not so sure about the "only once" > > part, but I do not have any strong objection. > > I am not sure what you are not sure about ;-). > > If you are adding a test for a feature because it is not covered by > existing tests, and if that feature consists of two parts, it is > naturally expected of you to cover both parts with the new test, > unless there is a strong reason not to. No? Sure. However, I was not seeing that a whole. Only testing the advice message seemed sensible to me. However, your proposed test covers the whole feature, and it shouldn't be too challenging to modify the advice's text if we need to. So, it is better. Thanks.
