On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 12:38 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Uncovered code in 'next' not in 'master'
> > --------------------------------------------
> > 
> > pretty.c
> > 4de9394dcb 1264) if (c->signature_check.primary_key_fingerprint)
> > 4de9394dcb 1265) strbuf_addstr(sb,
> > c->signature_check.primary_key_fingerprint);
> > 4de9394dcb 1266) break;
> 
> Perhaps a patch along this line can be appended to the
> mg/gpg-fingerprint topic that ends at 4de9394d ("gpg-interface.c:
> obtain primary key fingerprint as well", 2018-10-22) to cover this
> entry in the report.  
> 
> I do not know how involved it would be to set up a new test case
> that demonstrates a case where %GF and %GP are different, but if it
> is very involved perhaps it is not worth adding such a case.

Well, I didn't add a test for %GP primarily because we didn't have a key
with different primary and subkey fingerprints.

As for how involved... we'd just have to use a key that has split
signing subkey.  Would it be fine to add the subkey to the existing key?
 It would imply updating keyids/fingerprints everywhere.

> 
>  t/t7510-signed-commit.sh | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh
> index 19ccae2869..9ecafedcc4 100755
> --- a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh
> +++ b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh
> @@ -176,8 +176,9 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'show good signature with custom format' '
>  	13B6F51ECDDE430D
>  	C O Mitter <committer@example.com>
>  	73D758744BE721698EC54E8713B6F51ECDDE430D
> +	73D758744BE721698EC54E8713B6F51ECDDE430D
>  	EOF
> -	git log -1 --format="%G?%n%GK%n%GS%n%GF" sixth-signed >actual &&
> +	git log -1 --format="%G?%n%GK%n%GS%n%GF%n%GP" sixth-signed >actual &&
>  	test_cmp expect actual
>  '
>  

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny