Re: [PATCH 2/9] t1508 (at-combinations): test branches separately
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
Re: [PATCH 2/9] t1508 (at-combinations): test branches separately
Felipe Contreras wrote:
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
I think you misunderstood. Failure looks like this:
check @@{u} ref refs/heads/upstream-branch failure
And corresponding success like this:
check @@{u} refs/heads/upstream-branch
We can make the ref compulsory if you like. I thought about it too.
--
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
Re: [PATCH 2/9] t1508 (at-combinations): test branches separately
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
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
I think you misunderstood. Failure looks like this:
check @@{u} ref refs/heads/upstream-branch failure
And corresponding success like this:
check @@{u} refs/heads/upstream-branch
We can make the ref compulsory if you like. I thought about it too.
I think it's less surprising.
--
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
