Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > + GIT_EDITOR=: test_must_fail git rebase -i --root --onto master &&
>
> Maybe I am misrecalling things but didn't we have reports from people on
> some platforms that single-shot exporting of the environment like this one
> does not work for them?
Then that deserves a fix, though I should point out that the original
patches (now on master) have the same code in them.
[So many quirks and so little time!]
> > +sed 's/#/ /g' > expect-conflict-p <<'EOF'
> > +* Merge branch 'third' into other
> > +|\##
> > +| * 6
> > +* | Merge branch 'side' into other
> > +|\ \##
> > +| * | 5
> > +* | | 4
> > +|/ /##
> > +* | 3
> > +|/##
> > +* conflict
> > +* 2
> > +* 1
> > +EOF
>
> I do not like this very much. Future improvements of the graph drawing
> algorithm (one obvious "flaw" you are exposing by the above is that it has
> trailing whitespaces that can be trimmed, and somebody else may be
> inclined to fix) would break the expectation this test vector has.
>
> Do you have to compare the topology this way, or are there other more
> reliable ways?
It would certainly be possible to test the SHA1 of the resulting
branch tip, but t/README says I shouldn't. Or we could spell it out
as a series of 'parent of X is Y' and 'message of Y is foo' tests,
which seems rather messy.
The above approach at least has the advantage that a test failure due
to format change can be diagnosed very quickly just from the diff that
is shown with -v.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
