Re: [PATCHv3 3/7] revision.h: introduce blob/tree walking in order of the commits

[Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>]

On Thu,  2 Nov 2017 12:41:44 -0700
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:

> @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ void traverse_commit_list(struct rev_info *revs,
>  		if (commit->tree)
>  			add_pending_tree(revs, commit->tree);
>  		show_commit(commit, data);
> +		if (revs->tree_blobs_in_commit_order)
> +			traverse_trees_and_blobs(revs, &csp, show_object, data);
>  	}
>  	traverse_trees_and_blobs(revs, &csp, show_object, data);
>  

I would have expected add_pending_tree() above to no longer be invoked.
If it still needs to be invoked, maybe add an explanation in the form of
a comment or commit message.

> +test_expect_success 'rev-list --in-commit-order' '
> +	for x in one two three four
> +	do
> +		echo $x >$x &&
> +		git add $x &&
> +		git commit -m "add file $x" ||
> +		return 1
> +	done &&
> +	for x in four three
> +	do
> +		git rm $x &&
> +		git commit -m "remove $x" ||
> +		return 1
> +	done &&
> +	git rev-list --in-commit-order --objects HEAD >actual.raw &&
> +	cut -c 1-40 >actual <actual.raw &&
> +
> +	git cat-file --batch-check="%(objectname)" >expect.raw <<-\EOF &&
> +		HEAD^{commit}
> +		HEAD^{tree}
> +		HEAD^{tree}:one
> +		HEAD^{tree}:two
> +		HEAD~1^{commit}
> +		HEAD~1^{tree}
> +		HEAD~1^{tree}:three
> +		HEAD~2^{commit}
> +		HEAD~2^{tree}
> +		HEAD~2^{tree}:four
> +		HEAD~3^{commit}
> +		# HEAD~3^{tree} skipped, same as HEAD~1^{tree}
> +		HEAD~4^{commit}
> +		# HEAD~4^{tree} skipped, same as HEAD^{tree}
> +		HEAD~5^{commit}
> +		HEAD~5^{tree}
> +	EOF
> +	grep -v "#" >expect <expect.raw &&
> +
> +	test_cmp expect actual
> +'

Would it be useful to have another test without --in-commit-order, so
that we can see the difference (and ensure that existing behavior is
unchanged)?