Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 02/10] t/t5505-remote: test failure of set-head

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:54:20 +0900

Bence Ferdinandy <[email-masked]> writes:

> -			result |= error(_("Could not setup %s"), buf.buf);
> +			result |= error(_("Could not set up %s"), buf.buf);

Good eyes.

> diff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh
> index 9b50276646..4e127bf5b8 100755
> --- a/t/t5505-remote.sh
> +++ b/t/t5505-remote.sh
> @@ -432,6 +432,18 @@ test_expect_success 'set-head --auto' '
>  	)
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success REFFILES 'set-head --auto failure' '

Writing

	test_when_finished "rm -f test/.git/refs/remotes/origin/HEAD.lock" &&

here allows us not to worry about commands in the sequence before
the "rm" below failing unexpectedly.

> +	(
> +		cd test &&
> +		touch .git/refs/remotes/origin/HEAD.lock &&

> +		git remote set-head --auto origin 2>errormsg ||
> +		tail -n1 errormsg >output &&

Are we saying that it is OK for set-head not to fail here?  If not,
then this should be

		test_must_fail git remote set-head ... 2>err &&
		tail -n 1 err >actual &&

instead.

> +		rm .git/refs/remotes/origin/HEAD.lock &&
> +		echo "error: Could not set up refs/remotes/origin/HEAD" >expect &&
> +		test_cmp expect output
> +	)
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'set-head --auto has no problem w/multiple HEADs' '
>  	(
>  		cd test &&