From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Samuel Lijin <sxlijin@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] t7501: add merge conflict tests for dry run
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:05:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq1sc1rdvz.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180715110807.25544-2-sxlijin@gmail.com> (Samuel Lijin's message of "Sun, 15 Jul 2018 07:08:05 -0400")
Samuel Lijin <sxlijin@gmail.com> writes:
> The behavior of git commit when doing a dry run changes if there are
> unfixed/fixed merge conflits, but the test suite currently only asserts
> that `git commit --dry-run` succeeds when all merge conflicts are fixed.
>
> Add tests to document the behavior of all flags which imply a dry run
> when (1) there is at least one unfixed merge conflict and (2) when all
> merge conflicts are all fixed.
s/conflits/conflicts/
s/fixed/resolved/g (both above and in the patch text)
s/unfixed/unresolved/g (both above and in the patch text)
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Lijin <sxlijin@gmail.com>
> ---
> t/t7501-commit.sh | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t7501-commit.sh b/t/t7501-commit.sh
> index fa61b1a4e..be087e73f 100755
> --- a/t/t7501-commit.sh
> +++ b/t/t7501-commit.sh
> @@ -652,7 +652,8 @@ test_expect_success '--only works on to-be-born branch' '
> test_cmp expected actual
> '
>
> -test_expect_success '--dry-run with conflicts fixed from a merge' '
> +# set up env for tests of --dry-run given fixed/unfixed merge conflicts
> +test_expect_success 'setup env with unfixed merge conflicts' '
> # setup two branches with conflicting information
> # in the same file, resolve the conflict,
> # call commit with --dry-run
> @@ -665,11 +666,45 @@ test_expect_success '--dry-run with conflicts fixed from a merge' '
> git checkout -b branch-2 HEAD^1 &&
> echo "commit-2-state" >test-file &&
> git commit -m "commit 2" -i test-file &&
> - ! $(git merge --no-commit commit-1) &&
> - echo "commit-2-state" >test-file &&
> + test_expect_code 1 git merge --no-commit commit-1
The original is bad and also embarrassing. Whatever comes out of
the standard output of "git merge" is $IFS split and executed as a
shell command (which likely results in "no such command" failure)
and it tries to make sure that a failure happens.
The right way to write that line (without your enhancement in this
patch) would have been:
test_must_fail git merge --no-commit commit-1 &&
I doubt it is a good idea to hardcode exit status of 1 by using
test_expect_code, though. "git merge --help" does not say anything
about "1 means this failure, 2 means that failure, 3 means that
other failure". And my quick forward scan of this series does not
tell me that you are trying to declare that from here on we _will_
make that promise to the end users by carving the exit status(es) in
stone. The same about "git commit"'s exit code in the following
four tests.
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success '--dry-run with unfixed merge conflicts' '
> + test_expect_code 1 git commit --dry-run
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success '--short with unfixed merge conflicts' '
> + test_expect_code 1 git commit --short
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success '--porcelain with unfixed merge conflicts' '
> + test_expect_code 1 git commit --porcelain
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success '--long with unfixed merge conflicts' '
> + test_expect_code 1 git commit --long
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success '--dry-run with conflicts fixed from a merge' '
> + echo "merge-conflicts-fixed" >test-file &&
The original test pretended that we resolved favouring the current
state with "commit-2-state" in the file, as if we ran "-s ours".
Is there a reason why we now use a different contents, or is this
just a change based on subjective preference?
Not saying that the latter is necessrily bad; just trying to
understand why we are making this change.
> git add test-file &&
> - git commit --dry-run &&
> - git commit -m "conflicts fixed from merge."
> + git commit --dry-run
OK, the original tried --dry-run to ensure it exited with 0 status
(i.e. have something to commit) and then did a commit to record the
updated state with a message. You are checking only the dry-run
part, leaving the check of the final commit's status to another
test.
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_failure '--short with conflicts fixed from a merge' '
> + git commit --short
> +'
With "test_expect_failure", you are saying that "--short" _should_
exit with 0 but currently it does not. An untold expectation is
that even with the breakage with the exit code, the command still
honors the (implicit) --dry-run correctly and does not create a
new commit.
That was actually tested in the original. By &&-chaining like this
git commit --dry-run &&
git commit -m "conflicts fixed from merge."
we would have noticed if a newly introduced bug caused the first
step "commit --dry-run" to return non-zero status (because then the
step would fail), or if it stopped being dry-run and made a commit
(because then the next step would fail with "nothing to commit").
But by splitting these into separate tests, the patch makes such a
potential failure with "git commit --short" break the later steps.
Not very nice.
It may be a better change to just do in the original one
git add test-file &&
git commit --dry-run &&
+ git commit --short &&
+ git commit --long &&
+ git commit --porcelain &&
git commit -m "conflicts fixed from merge."
without adding these new and separate tests, and then mark that one
to expect a failure (because it would pass up to the --dry-run
commit, but the --short commit would fail) at this step, perhaps?
> +test_expect_failure '--porcelain with conflicts fixed from a merge' '
> + git commit --porcelain
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success '--long with conflicts fixed from a merge' '
> + git commit --long
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success '--message with conflicts fixed from a merge' '
> + git commit --message "conflicts fixed from merge."
> '
>
> test_done
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-17 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-18 3:06 [PATCH 0/2] Fix --short and --porcelain options for commit Samuel Lijin
2018-04-18 3:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] commit: fix --short and --porcelain Samuel Lijin
2018-04-18 18:38 ` Martin Ågren
[not found] ` <CAJZjrdW3X8eaSit85otKV2HvHmu0NDGcnnnrtxHME03q=eWW-Q@mail.gmail.com>
2018-04-19 3:55 ` Samuel Lijin
2018-04-20 7:08 ` Eric Sunshine
2018-04-18 3:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] wt-status: const-ify all printf helper methods Samuel Lijin
2018-04-26 9:25 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix --short and --porcelain options for commit Samuel Lijin
2018-07-15 11:08 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] Fix --short/--porcelain options for git commit Samuel Lijin
2018-07-23 2:08 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] Rerolling patch series to fix t7501 Samuel Lijin
2018-07-30 22:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-07-23 2:09 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] t7501: add coverage for flags which imply dry runs Samuel Lijin
2018-07-23 2:09 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] wt-status: rename commitable to committable Samuel Lijin
2018-07-23 2:09 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] wt-status: teach wt_status_collect about merges in progress Samuel Lijin
2018-07-23 2:09 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] commit: fix exit code when doing a dry run Samuel Lijin
2018-07-15 11:08 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] t7501: add merge conflict tests for " Samuel Lijin
2018-07-17 17:05 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2018-07-17 17:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-07-15 11:08 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] wt-status: teach wt_status_collect about merges in progress Samuel Lijin
2018-07-17 17:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-07-15 11:08 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] commit: fix exit code for --short/--porcelain Samuel Lijin
2018-07-17 17:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-07-19 9:31 ` Samuel Lijin
2018-04-26 9:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] commit: fix --short and --porcelain options Samuel Lijin
2018-05-02 5:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-05-02 15:52 ` Samuel Lijin
2018-04-26 9:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] wt-status: const-ify all printf helper methods Samuel Lijin
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=xmqq1sc1rdvz.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sxlijin@gmail.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public 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).