Re: Git Test Coverage Report (Friday, Nov 2)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> writes:

> 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.

Yes, that "everywhere" is exactly what I meant by "how involved",
and your suggestion answers "very much involved".

If we can easily add _another_ key with a subkey that is not the
primary one we use for other tests, without touching the existing
key and the existing tests that use it (including the one I touched
below--- we'd want to see a sig with a key that is not split is
shown with the same %GF and %GP), while adding a handful of new
tests that create signed objects under the new & split key and 
view them with %GF and %GP, then the end result would be that we
managed to add a new test case where %GF/%GP are different without
making very much involved changes.  I guess that was what I was
getting at.

Thanks.

>
>> 
>>  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
>>  '
>>