On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com>
>
> In the tests involving @{-1} and @{u} as the final component, what we
> really want to check is if it's pointing to the right ref.  We
> currently check the tip commit of the ref, but we can clarify this by
> separating out checking for commits versus checking for refs at
> check().
>
> [rr: commit message, fix arguments in check()]
>
> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com>
> ---
>  t/t1508-at-combinations.sh | 27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh b/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh
> index 46e3f16..cacb2d0 100755
> --- a/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh
> +++ b/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh
> @@ -4,9 +4,14 @@ test_description='test various @{X} syntax combinations 
> together'
>  . ./test-lib.sh
>
>  check() {
> -test_expect_${3:-success} "$1 = $2" "
> -       echo '$2' >expect &&
> -       git log -1 --format=%s '$1' >actual &&
> +test_expect_${4:-success} "$1 = ${3:-$2}" "
> +       if [ '$2' == 'commit' ]; then
> +               echo '$3' >expect &&
> +               git log -1 --format=%s '$1' >actual
> +       else
> +               echo '${3:-$2}' >expect &&
> +               git rev-parse --symbolic-full-name '$1' >actual
> +       fi &&
>         test_cmp expect actual
>  "
>  }

I'm not sure about this. If we introduce a check that fails, we would
have to do:

check HEAD refs/heads/new-branch "" failure

Which doesn't seem clean. Perhaps it makes more sense to always add
the type of check:

check HEAD ref refs/heads/new-branch

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to