On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> W dniu 29.08.2016 o 10:04, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
> > The sequencer was introduced to make the cherry-pick and revert
> > functionality available as library function, with the original idea
> > being to extend the sequencer to also implement the rebase -i
> > functionality.
> > The test to ensure that all of the commands in the script are identical
> > to the overall operation does not mesh well with that.
> Actually the question is what does the test that got removed in this
> commit actually check. Is it high-level sanity check that todo list
> for git-cherry-pick contains only 'pick', and for git-revert contains
> only 'revert'?
It might have been that at some stage.
But should we really check that? Or should we check the *effects*?
I am of the opinion that overzealous checking of certain implementation
details is something to be avoided.
> > Therefore let's just get rid of the test that wants to verify that this
> > limitation is still in place, in preparation for the upcoming work to
> > teach the sequencer to do rebase -i's work.
> Is it "upcoming work" as in one of the patches in this series?
> If so, which patch?
I left this a little vague, didn't I? ;-)
The problem is that the `git-rebase-todo` most definitely does *not* want
to be restricted to a single command.
So if you must have a patch that disagrees with this overzealous check,
the "revamp todo parsing" one is probably the first. But it is better to
think of this at a higher level than just patches: it is wrong to limit
the todo script to contain only identical commands.
> > diff --git a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> > b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> > index 7b7a89d..6465edf 100755
> > --- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> > +++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> > @@ -459,17 +459,6 @@ test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 1' '
> > test_expect_code 128 git cherry-pick --continue
> > '
> > -test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 2' '
> Hmmm... the description is somewhat lacking (especially compared to
> the rest of test), anyway.
> BTW. we should probably rename 'malformed instruction sheet 2'
> to 'malformed instruction sheet' if there are no further such
> tests after this removal, isn't it?
No, we cannot rename it after this patch because the patch removes it ;-)
(It is not a file name but really a label for a test case.)
Thanks for the review,