Am 05.06.2013 00:04, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Johannes Sixt <> writes:
>> @@ -62,12 +57,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git update-index to add conflicting 
>> file path2 should fail'
>>  test_expect_success 'git update-index to add conflicting symlink path3 
>> should fail' '
>> -    if test_have_prereq SYMLINKS
>> -    then
>> -            ln -s xyzzy path3
>> -    else
>> -            date >path3
>> -    fi &&
>> +    test_ln_s xyzzy path3 &&
>>      test_must_fail git update-index --add -- path3
>>  '
> This is also borderline questionable.  With path2, we are already
> testing that adding a regular file (one variant of "non directory")
> at a path that the index expects to see a directory (the index has
> path2/file2 in it at this point) fails,...

You are right, of course. But again, the issue is not new with this patch.

> If we want to really test the equivalent on a filesystem without
> symbolic links, it would be a more faithful test to attempt to add
> it using "--add --cacheinfo" and see it fail, i.e.
>    test_must_fail_to_ln_s_add xyzzy path3
> which would be a copy of test_ln_s_add but has test_must_fail before
> two calls to git_update_index it makes.

That's not necessary, IMO. We can just add an unconditional --cache-info
test here and add SYMLINKS to the above test.

> I think all the test_ln_s_add conversion in the series make sense,
> but many uses of test_ln_s are questionable, and I suspect it would
> invite similar confusion down the road.

Incidentally, I've been running the test_ln_s_add conversions since,
whoa!, two years now, but added test_ln_s only when I cleaned up the
patch for submission. Perhaps it's better when I rip out test_ln_s again.

-- Hannes

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to