On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:19:00 -0700
Stefan Beller <[email protected]> wrote:
> > +test_expect_success 'not writing gitmodules config file when it is not
> > checked out' '
> > + test_must_fail git -C super submodule--helper config
> > submodule.submodule.url newurl
>
> This only checks the exit code, do we also want to check for
>
> test_path_is_missing .gitmodules ?
>
OK, I agree, let's re-check also *after* we tried and failed to set
a config value, just to be sure that the code does not get accidentally
changed in the future to create the file. I'll add the check.
> > +test_expect_success 'initialising submodule when the gitmodules config is
> > not checked out' '
> > + git -C super submodule init
> > +'
> > +
> > +test_expect_success 'showing submodule summary when the gitmodules config
> > is not checked out' '
> > + git -C super submodule summary
> > +'
>
> Same for these, is the exit code enough, or do we want to look at
> specific things?
>
Except for the "summary" test which was not even exercising the
config_from_gitmodule path, checking exist status should be sufficient
to verify that "submodule--helper config" does not fail, but we can
surely do better.
I will add checks to confirm that not only the commands exited without
errors but they also achieved the desired effect, to validate the actual
high-level use case advertised by the test file. This should be more
future-proof.
And I think I'll merge the summary and the update tests.
> > +
> > +test_expect_success 'updating submodule when the gitmodules config is not
> > checked out' '
> > + (cd submodule &&
> > + echo file2 >file2 &&
> > + git add file2 &&
> > + git commit -m "add file2 to submodule"
> > + ) &&
> > + git -C super submodule update
>
> git status would want to be clean afterwards?
Mmh, this should have been "submodule update --remote" in the first
place to have any effect, I'll take the chance and rewrite this test in
a different way and also check the effect of the update operation, and
the repository status.
I'll be something like this:
ORIG_SUBMODULE=$(git -C submodule rev-parse HEAD)
ORIG_UPSTREAM=$(git -C upstream rev-parse HEAD)
ORIG_SUPER=$(git -C super rev-parse HEAD)
test_expect_success 're-updating submodule when the gitmodules config is not
checked out' '
test_when_finished "git -C submodule reset --hard $ORIG_SUBMODULE;
git -C upstream reset --hard $ORIG_UPSTREAM;
git -C super reset --hard $ORIG_SUPER;
git -C upstream submodule update --remote;
git -C super pull;
git -C super submodule update --remote" &&
(cd submodule &&
echo file2 >file2 &&
git add file2 &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "add file2 to submodule"
) &&
(cd upstream &&
git submodule update --remote &&
git add submodule &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "Update submodule"
) &&
git -C super pull &&
# The --for-status options reads the gitmdoules config
git -C super submodule summary --for-status >actual &&
cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
* submodule 951c301...a939200 (1):
< add file2 to submodule
EOF
test_cmp expect actual &&
# Test that the update actually succeeds
test_path_is_missing super/submodule/file2 &&
git -C super submodule update &&
test_cmp submodule/file2 super/submodule/file2 &&
git -C super status --short >output &&
test_must_be_empty output
'
Maybe a little overkill?
The "upstream" repo will be added in test 1 to better clarify the roles
of the involved repositories.
The commit ids should be stable because of test_tick, shouldn't they?
Thanks for the comments, they helped improving the quality of the tests
once again.
I'll wait a few days before sending a v7, hopefully someone will find
time to take another look at patch 9 and comment also on patch 10, and
give an opinion on the "mergeability" status of the whole patchset.
Ciao ciao,
Antonio
--
Antonio Ospite
https://ao2.it
https://twitter.com/ao2it
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
