Joel Teichroeb <j...@teichroeb.net> writes:
> If the return value of merge recurisve is not checked, the stash could end
> up being dropped even though it was not applied properly
s/recurisve/recursive/
> Signed-off-by: Joel Teichroeb <j...@teichroeb.net>
> ---
> t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> index cc923e6335..5399fb05ca 100755
> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> @@ -656,6 +656,20 @@ test_expect_success 'stash branch should not drop the
> stash if the branch exists
> git rev-parse stash@{0} --
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'stash branch should not drop the stash if the apply
> fails' '
> + git stash clear &&
> + git reset HEAD~1 --hard &&
> + echo foo >file &&
> + git add file &&
> + git commit -m initial &&
It's not quite intuitive to call a non-root commit "initial" ;-)
> + echo bar >file &&
> + git stash &&
> + echo baz >file &&
OK, so 'file' has 'foo' in HEAD, 'bar' in the stash@{0}.
> + test_when_finished "git checkout master" &&
> + test_must_fail git stash branch new_branch stash@{0} &&
Hmph. Do we blindly checkout new_branch out of stash@{0}^1 and
unstash, but because 'file' in the working tree is dirty, we fail to
apply the stash and stop?
This sounds like a bug to me. Shouldn't we be staying on 'master',
and fail without even creating 'new_branch', when this happens?
In any case we should be testing what branch we are on after this
step. What branch should we be on after "git stash branch" fails?
> + git rev-parse stash@{0} --
> +'
> +
> test_expect_success 'stash apply shows status same as git status (relative
> to current directory)' '
> git stash clear &&
> echo 1 >subdir/subfile1 &&
