Re: [PATCH 3/3] read-cache: don't write index twice if we can't write shared index

[Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/t/t1700-split-index.sh b/t/t1700-split-index.sh
>> index af9b847761..d2a8e0312a 100755
>> --- a/t/t1700-split-index.sh
>> +++ b/t/t1700-split-index.sh
>> @@ -401,4 +401,23 @@ done <<\EOF
>>  0642 -rw-r---w-
>>  EOF
>>
>> +test_expect_success SANITY 'graceful handling when splitting index is not allowed' '
>
> Is SANITY the only prereq we want, or do we want both it and POSIXPERM?
>
> In "git grep SANITY t/" output, we see that they are almost always
> used together.

SANITY test does more or less the same as this one (chmod then verify)
which is the reason I removed POSIXPERM. Looking at other tests
though, they don't do anything different than what I do here and still
require both SANITY and POSIXPERM. I'm adding POSIXPERM back.

>
>> +     test_create_repo ro &&
>> +     (
>> +             cd ro &&
>> +             test_commit initial &&
>> +             git update-index --split-index &&
>> +             test -f .git/sharedindex.*
>> +     ) &&
>> +     cp ro/.git/index new-index &&
>> +     test_when_finished "chmod u+w ro/.git" &&
>> +     chmod u-w ro/.git &&
>> +     GIT_INDEX_FILE="$(pwd)/new-index" git -C ro update-index --split-index &&
>> +     chmod u+w ro/.git &&
>> +     rm ro/.git/sharedindex.* &&
>> +     GIT_INDEX_FILE=new-index git ls-files >actual &&
>> +     echo initial.t >expected &&
>> +     test_cmp expected actual
>> +'
>> +
>>  test_done



-- 
Duy