Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:04:27AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > It seems like t7030 should just skip_all when the GPG prereq is not > > met (it's not wrong to mark each test that's added, but it would have > > made this particular mistake harder). > >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:49:43PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:45:30AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > I actually think this uncovers another class of breakage. t7030 > > tests should be protected with GPG prereq and 'fourth-signed' that > > is made only with the

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

Jeff King writes: > It seems like t7030 should just skip_all when the GPG prereq is not > met (it's not wrong to mark each test that's added, but it would have > made this particular mistake harder). I'd leave that to be done by others after the dust settles ;-). Here is what

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:45:30AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I actually think this uncovers another class of breakage. t7030 > tests should be protected with GPG prereq and 'fourth-signed' that > is made only with the prereq in the first test will not be found. It seems like t7030 should

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

Jeff King writes: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:00:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Santiago Torres writes: >> >> > This sounds like a helpful addition to implement. We could update/add >> > tests for compliance on this once the feature is addded and fix

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:00:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Santiago Torres writes: > > > This sounds like a helpful addition to implement. We could update/add > > tests for compliance on this once the feature is addded and fix the > > ambiguous behavior in the tests

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:00:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Santiago Torres writes: > OK, so has everybody agreed what the next step would be? I believe it is, although I imagine getting a confirmation from Peff would be adequate. > Is the patch below a good first

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

Santiago Torres writes: > This sounds like a helpful addition to implement. We could update/add > tests for compliance on this once the feature is addded and fix the > ambiguous behavior in the tests now. OK, so has everybody agreed what the next step would be? Is the patch

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:41:24PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > In that case, something like this would be closer to the desired > > behavior? > > Yes, though you can spell: > > cat >expect <<-\EOF > EOF > > as just: > > >expect Ah, that sounds like a better way to fix this with a

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

Jeff King writes: > OTOH, we could perhaps make the rule "ignored unless %(gpg) formatters > are used". Which would be backwards-compatible and safe for old formats, > and work correctly for new ones. Yup, that is a very sensible escape hatch that we can use later. Thanks.

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:34:43PM -0400, Santiago Torres wrote: > > I worked up the patch to do that (see below), but I got stumped trying > > to write the commit message. Perhaps that is what the test intended, but > > I don't think tag's --format understands "%G" codes at all. So you > >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

Jeff King writes: > I worked up the patch to do that (see below), but I got stumped trying > to write the commit message. Perhaps that is what the test intended, but > I don't think tag's --format understands "%G" codes at all. > So you cannot tell from the output if a tag was

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

> I worked up the patch to do that (see below), but I got stumped trying > to write the commit message. Perhaps that is what the test intended, but > I don't think tag's --format understands "%G" codes at all. So you > cannot tell from the output if a tag was valid or not; you have to check > the

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:15:57PM -0400, Santiago Torres wrote: > > > Like 2/3, this one also produces test failures for me. It looks like > > > "verify-tag" does not show a tag which has been forged. I'm not sure if > > > that's intentional (and the test is wrong) or a bug. +cc Santiago > > >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 03:04:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:08:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> From: Jan Palus > >> > >> These all came as part of an earlier st/verify-tag topic that was >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:08:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> From: Jan Palus >> >> These all came as part of an earlier st/verify-tag topic that was >> merged to 2.12. >> >> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano >>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 05:43:57PM -0400, Santiago Torres wrote: > > Like 2/3, this one also produces test failures for me. It looks like > > "verify-tag" does not show a tag which has been forged. I'm not sure if > > that's intentional (and the test is wrong) or a bug. > > I see that offending

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 05:10:03PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:08:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > From: Jan Palus > > > > These all came as part of an earlier st/verify-tag topic that was > > merged to 2.12. > > > > Signed-off-by: Junio C

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:08:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > From: Jan Palus > > These all came as part of an earlier st/verify-tag topic that was > merged to 2.12. > > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > --- > > * This should be applied on top of

[PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors

From: Jan Palus These all came as part of an earlier st/verify-tag topic that was merged to 2.12. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- * This should be applied on top of 4fea72f4 ("t/t7004-tag: Add --format specifier tests", 2017-01-17)