Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > +test_expect_success 'onbranch without repository' ' > + test_when_finished "rm -f .gitconfig config.inc" && > + git config set -f .gitconfig "includeIf.onbranch:**.path" config.inc && > + git config set -f config.inc foo.bar baz && This assumes that the $(pwd) is the $HOME; so .gitconfig is the per-user configuration that ought to apply everywhere; since includeIf.<condition>.path that is relative is relative to the including file, config.inc would be in cluded when the condition holds in $HOME/.gitconfig. OK. > + git config get foo.bar && This assumes that the $(pwd) that is $HOME is a valid repository, and checks if includeIf.onbranch works from within a repository. OK. > + test_must_fail nongit git config get foo.bar > +' > +test_expect_failure 'onbranch without repository but explicit nonexistent Git directory' ' > + test_when_finished "rm -f .gitconfig config.inc" && > + git config set -f .gitconfig "includeIf.onbranch:**.path" config.inc && > + git config set -f config.inc foo.bar baz && The same set-up. > + git config get foo.bar && > + test_must_fail nongit git --git-dir=nonexistent config get foo.bar It has to work when $(pwd) is outside a repository, but is "nongit" strictly necessary? IOW, even when we _could_ discover the top level of a git-controlled working tree, wouldn't presence of --git-dir that points at elsewhere make $(pwd) and the repository there irrelevant to the operation? I am not suggesting to just drop "nongit" from this test. I am wondering if this is better split into two tests, with and without "nongit" to test different situations. > +' > + > test_done Other than that, looks like good additions to the test coverage. Thanks.
