Subject: Re: [PATCH] t3200: test branch creation with -v

From: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:12:52 +0200

Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 13.09.2011 05:57:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 03:29:43PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> 
>> Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 09.09.2011 21:43:
>>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:40:59PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>>>
>>>> +test_expect_success 'git branch -v t should work' ' +	git branch
>>>> -v t && +	test .git/refs/heads/t &&
>>>
>>> test -f ?
>>>
>>> Also, don't we have test_path_is_file which yields slightly prettier 
>>> output (and maybe some portability benefits; I don't remember)?
>>>
>>>> +	git branch -d t && +	test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t
>>>
>>> Ditto for 'test_path_is_missing' here.
>>>
>>> -Peff
>>
>> Well, I tried to follow the surrounding style. That t3200 could benefit
>> from some attention, though, which I did not want to mix in with the
>> issue at hand.
> 
> The "test_path_is_file" thing is style. But not using "test -f" is just
> wrong; you are testing "is .git/refs/heads/t an empty string?" which is
> useless.
> 
> You want this on top of what's in mg/branch-list:

Yes, sorry. How did I miss that?

I'd prefer your style anyway, but also prefer changing t3200 in one go.

> 
> diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh b/t/t3200-branch.sh
> index c466b20..b513115 100755
> --- a/t/t3200-branch.sh
> +++ b/t/t3200-branch.sh
> @@ -100,14 +100,14 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -m q r/q should fail when r exists' '
>  
>  test_expect_success 'git branch -v -d t should work' '
>  	git branch t &&
> -	test .git/refs/heads/t &&
> +	test -f .git/refs/heads/t &&
>  	git branch -v -d t &&
>  	test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t
>  '
>  
>  test_expect_success 'git branch -v -m t s should work' '
>  	git branch t &&
> -	test .git/refs/heads/t &&
> +	test -f .git/refs/heads/t &&
>  	git branch -v -m t s &&
>  	test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t &&
>  	test -f .git/refs/heads/s &&
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -v -m t s should work' '
>  
>  test_expect_success 'git branch -m -d t s should fail' '
>  	git branch t &&
> -	test .git/refs/heads/t &&
> +	test -f .git/refs/heads/t &&
>  	test_must_fail git branch -m -d t s &&
>  	git branch -d t &&
>  	test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t
> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -m -d t s should fail' '
>  
>  test_expect_success 'git branch --list -d t should fail' '
>  	git branch t &&
> -	test .git/refs/heads/t &&
> +	test -f .git/refs/heads/t &&
>  	test_must_fail git branch --list -d t &&
>  	git branch -d t &&
>  	test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t
> 
> I suspect you didn't notice the bogosity before because those are just
> confirming the precondition that "git branch" actually created the file.
> 
> -Peff