On 5/30/2017 9:18 AM, Christian Couder wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Ben Peart <peart...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/t/t7519-status-fsmonitor.sh b/t/t7519-status-fsmonitor.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000000..395db46d55
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/t7519-status-fsmonitor.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+test_description='git status with file system watcher'
+
+. ./test-lib.sh
+
+clean_repo () {
+ git reset --hard HEAD
+ git clean -fd
+ rm -f marker
+}
Maybe link all the commands in the function with "&&".
+dirty_repo () {
+ : >untracked
+ : >dir1/untracked
+ : >dir2/untracked
+ echo 1 >modified
+ echo 2 >dir1/modified
+ echo 3 >dir2/modified
+ echo 4 >new
+ echo 5 >dir1/new
+ echo 6 >dir2/new
+ git add new
+ git add dir1/new
+ git add dir2/new
+}
Idem.
I did a quick search through the existing test scripts and the majority
do not link commands together with && when they are in a sub function
like this. I find not having them linked together is easier to write,
maintain and is more readable.
+# The test query-fsmonitor hook proc will output a marker file we can use to
+# ensure the hook was actually used to generate the correct results.
+
+test_expect_success 'setup' '
+ mkdir -p .git/hooks &&
+ write_script .git/hooks/query-fsmonitor<<-\EOF &&
+ if [ $1 -ne 1 ]
+ then
+ echo -e "Unsupported query-fsmonitor hook version.\n" >&2
+ exit 1;
+ fi
+ : >marker
+ printf "untracked\0"
+ printf "dir1/untracked\0"
+ printf "dir2/untracked\0"
+ printf "modified\0"
+ printf "dir1/modified\0"
+ printf "dir2/modified\0"
+ printf "new\0""
+ printf "dir1/new\0"
+ printf "dir2/new\0"
Maybe something like the following to save a few lines and remove some
redundancies:
printf "%s\0" untracked dir1/untracked dir2/untracked \
modified dir1/modified dir2/modified \
new dir1/new dir2/new
or perhaps:
for f in untracked modified new
do
printf "%s\0" "$f" "dir1/$f" "dir2/$f"
done
That is a clever solution that certainly is fewer lines of code.
However, I have to read the loop and think through the logic to figure
out what it is doing vs the existing implementation where what it is
doing is apparent from just glancing at the code. I was also trying to
maintain consistency with the other status test code in t7508-status.sh
+ EOF
+ : >tracked &&
+ : >modified &&
+ mkdir dir1 &&
+ : >dir1/tracked &&
+ : >dir1/modified &&
+ mkdir dir2 &&
+ : >dir2/tracked &&
+ : >dir2/modified &&
+ git add . &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m initial &&
+ dirty_repo
+'
+
+cat >.gitignore <<\EOF
+.gitignore
+expect*
+output*
+marker*
+EOF
This could be part of the previous setup test.
I had followed the pattern in t7508-status.sh with this but I can move
it in if that is the preferred model.
+# Status is well tested elsewhere so we'll just ensure that the results are
+# the same when using core.fsmonitor. First call after turning on the option
+# does a complete scan so need to do two calls to ensure we test the new
+# codepath.
+
+test_expect_success 'status with core.untrackedcache true' '
If this test is using untracked cache, it should perhaps first check
that untracked cache can be used on the current file system.
t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh does that with the following:
test_lazy_prereq UNTRACKED_CACHE '
{ git update-index --test-untracked-cache; ret=$?; } &&
test $ret -ne 1
'
if ! test_have_prereq UNTRACKED_CACHE; then
skip_all='This system does not support untracked cache'
test_done
fi
Good point. I'll change it so that untracked cache is only turned on if
it is available and that the one test that requires it is skipped if it
isn't available.
+ git config core.fsmonitor true &&
+ git config core.untrackedcache true &&
+ git -c core.fsmonitor=false -c core.untrackedcache=true status >expect
&&
I don't understand why there is " -c core.untrackedcache=true" in the
above command as you already set core.untrackedcache to true on the
previous line.
Defensive programming. :) The global setting was to ensure it was set
when the test sub-functions clean and dirty were called and the command
line settings were used to make it explicit what was being tested. I
can remove them if it is causing confusion.
+ clean_repo &&
+ git status &&
+ test_path_is_missing marker &&
+ dirty_repo &&
+ git status >output &&
+ test_path_is_file marker &&
+ test_i18ncmp expect output
+'
+
+
Spurious new line.
Fixed
+test_expect_success 'status with core.untrackedcache false' '
+ git config core.fsmonitor true &&
+ git config core.untrackedcache false &&
+ git -c core.fsmonitor=false -c core.untrackedcache=false status >expect
&&
Again core.untrackedcache is already set to false on the previous line.
+ clean_repo &&
+ git status &&
+ test_path_is_missing marker &&
+ dirty_repo &&
+ git status >output &&
+ test_path_is_file marker &&
+ test_i18ncmp expect output
+'
+
+# Ensure commands that call refresh_index() to move the index back in time
+# properly invalidate the fsmonitor cache
+
+test_expect_success 'refresh_index() invalidates fsmonitor cache' '
+ git config core.fsmonitor true &&
+ git config core.untrackedcache true &&
+ clean_repo &&
+ git status &&
+ test_path_is_missing marker &&
+ dirty_repo &&
+ write_script .git/hooks/query-fsmonitor<<-\EOF &&
+ :>marker
+ EOF
+ git add . &&
+ git commit -m "to reset" &&
+ git status &&
+ test_path_is_file marker &&
+ git reset HEAD~1 &&
+ git status >output &&
+ test_path_is_file marker &&
You already checked that "marker" exists 3 lines above, and as far as
I can see nothing could remove this file since the previous test, as
the hook can only create it.
So I wonder if something is missing or if this test is redundant.
Testing it each time ensures it is being created when it is supposed to
be (ie when the test believes it is using the query-fsmonitor hook) and
that it isn't when it isn't supposed to be (ie when the hook should not
be called).
+ git -c core.fsmonitor=false status >expect &&
+ test_i18ncmp expect output
+'
+
+# Now make sure it's actually skipping the check for modified and untracked
+# files unless it is told about them. Note, after "git reset --hard HEAD" no
+# extensions exist other than 'TREE' so do a "git status" to get the extension
+# written before testing the results.
+
+test_expect_success 'status doesnt detect unreported modifications' '
Maybe:
test_expect_success "status doesn't detect unreported modifications" '
Fixed
+ git config core.fsmonitor true &&
+ git config core.untrackedcache true &&
+ write_script .git/hooks/query-fsmonitor<<-\EOF &&
+ :>marker
+ EOF
+ clean_repo &&
+ git status &&
+ test_path_is_missing marker &&
+ : >untracked &&
+ echo 2 >dir1/modified &&
+ git status >output &&
+ test_path_is_file marker &&
+ test_i18ngrep ! "Changes not staged for commit:" output &&
+ test_i18ngrep ! "Untracked files:" output &&
+ write_script .git/hooks/query-fsmonitor<<-\EOF &&
+ :>marker
+ printf "untracked%s\0"
Why is there a %s in the above?
Fixed
+ printf "dir1/modified\0"
+ EOF
+ git status >output &&
+ test_path_is_file marker &&
+ test_i18ngrep "Changes not staged for commit:" output &&
+ test_i18ngrep "Untracked files:" output
+'
+
+test_done
--
2.13.0.windows.1.9.gc201c67b71
