From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Jeff King <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] t1309: use a non-loaded branch name in the `onbranch` test cases Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 01:24:13 +0100 (CET) [thread overview] Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5252 bytes --] Hi Ævar, On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18 2020, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > From: Johannes Schindelin <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > > The `onbranch` test cases in question do not actually want to include > > anything; Instead, they want to verify that the `onbranch` code path > > does not regress in the early-config case or in the non-Git case, where > > the `onbranch` include is actually ignored. > > It's unclear to me what this patch is for & why it's needed. Well, the entire idea of switching to a new default branch name is to avoid using words that we know cause undue emotional harm. In the grand scheme, therefore, I want to avoid having any mention of such words in our test suite. > Yesterday in your v2 27/27 series you sent a different one that changed > this from s/master/main/g: > https://email@example.com/ > > That's on top of "next", but this one is on "master", the two would > conflict, and the 02/27 one seems like the right thing to do. Yeah, I hadn't made it clear yet at the time you wrote this that my intention was to give in to your and Junio's suggestion to restrict the `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME` assignments to _just_ the test scripts that don't work with arbitrary default branch names. I had hoped that mentioning gitgitgadget PR 762 (which is that 27-strong patch series) would be indicator enough that I was in the process of revamping it into a v3, and that this here patch is one part that I separated out into its own patch. > > Therefore, the actual branch name does not matter at all. We might just > > as well avoid racially-charged names here. > > It seems to me the actual name matters a lot, and it must whatever the > default branch name is. Nope. Not at all. Because what we're exercising is the code paths when we _don't_ have a branch name to work with. In the non-Git case, this is trivial to see. There is not even a repository! How can there be a branch? In the early config case, it is too early to access the refs. I meant to reference (but forgot) the commit 85fe0e800ca (config: work around bug with includeif:onbranch and early config, 2019-07-31) because that commit's commit message describes the catch-22 that is the reason why the early config cannot see the current branch name (if any). I should probably have thought of referencing 22932d9169f (config: stop checking whether the_repository is NULL, 2019-08-06) for the second test case, too. So again, these two test cases do _not_ exercise the code path where another config file is included. To the contrary, they try to prevent a regression where `onbranch` would segfault in one case, and BUG in the other (in both cases because the now-fixed code used to try to look at the current branch name _anyway_). > I.e. what the test is doing is producing intentionally broken config, > and asserting that we don't read it at an early stage. > > Therefore if we regressed and started doing that the test wouldn't catch > it, because the default branch name is "master", or "main" if/when that > refs.c change lands, neither of which is "topic". No, if we regressed, the code would start to throw a BUG, or a segfault, respectively. We never expect these two test cases to look at any branch name at all. Ciao, Dscho > Maybe I'm missing something but it seems 58ebccb478 ("t1309: use short > branch name in includeIf.onbranch test", 2019-08-06) and your own > 85fe0e800c ("config: work around bug with includeif:onbranch and early > config", 2019-07-31) which added the test support reading. > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > --- > > t1309: use a non-loaded branch name in the onbranch test cases > > > > Just something I stumbled over while working on > > https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/762. > > > > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-791%2Fdscho%2Ft1309-onbranch-tests-v1 > > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-791/dscho/t1309-onbranch-tests-v1 > > Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/791 > > > > t/t1309-early-config.sh | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/t/t1309-early-config.sh b/t/t1309-early-config.sh > > index ebb8e1aecb..b4a9158307 100755 > > --- a/t/t1309-early-config.sh > > +++ b/t/t1309-early-config.sh > > @@ -91,11 +91,11 @@ test_expect_failure 'ignore .git/ with invalid config' ' > > > > test_expect_success 'early config and onbranch' ' > > echo "[broken" >broken && > > - test_with_config "[includeif \"onbranch:master\"]path=../broken" > > + test_with_config "[includeif \"onbranch:topic\"]path=../broken" > > ' > > > > test_expect_success 'onbranch config outside of git repo' ' > > - test_config_global includeIf.onbranch:master.path non-existent && > > + test_config_global includeIf.onbranch:topic.path non-existent && > > nongit git help > > ' > > > > > > base-commit: e31aba42fb12bdeb0f850829e008e1e3f43af500 > > >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-19 0:26 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-11-18 14:23 Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget 2020-11-18 14:52 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2020-11-19 0:24 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message] 2020-11-19 7:35 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2020-11-19 10:49 ` Johannes Schindelin 2020-11-19 11:41 ` [PATCH v2] t1309: use a neutral " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=nycvar.QRO.email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] t1309: use a non-loaded branch name in the `onbranch` test cases' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).