Message ID | cover.1571739459.git.liu.denton@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | t5520: various test cleanup | expand |
Hi Junio, There haven't been any comments in a couple days so I think this patchset is ready for inclusion. Thanks, Denton On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 03:19:51AM -0700, Denton Liu wrote: > Like earlier patchsets, I want to implement a feature that involves > modifications to the test suite. Since that feature will probably take a > while to polish up, however, let's clean up the test suite in a separate > patchset first so it's not blocked by the feature work. > > 1/15 is a general improvement to test_rev_cmp() that will be used later > in the series. > > Changes since v2: > > * Drop 't7408: replace `test_must_fail test_path_is_file`' since it's > not a rabbit hole we want to go into right now > > * Fix the output of `test_cmp_rev !` when revs are actually equal > > * Rebase against the latest master since this topic hasn't been picked > up yet > > Changes since v1: > > * Incorporate Eric's feedback > > Denton Liu (14): > t: teach test_cmp_rev to accept ! for not-equals > t5520: improve test style > t5520: use sq for test case names > t5520: let sed open its own input > t5520: replace test -f with test-lib functions > t5520: remove spaces after redirect operator > t5520: use test_line_count where possible > t5520: replace test -{n,z} with test-lib functions > t5520: use test_cmp_rev where possible > t5520: test single-line files by git with test_cmp > t5520: don't put git in upstream of pipe > t5520: replace subshell cat comparison with test_cmp > t5520: remove redundant lines in test cases > t5520: replace `! git` with `test_must_fail git` > > t/t2400-worktree-add.sh | 4 +- > t/t3400-rebase.sh | 2 +- > t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 6 +- > t/t3430-rebase-merges.sh | 2 +- > t/t3432-rebase-fast-forward.sh | 2 +- > t/t3501-revert-cherry-pick.sh | 2 +- > t/t3508-cherry-pick-many-commits.sh | 2 +- > t/t5520-pull.sh | 343 +++++++++++++++++----------- > t/test-lib-functions.sh | 22 +- > 9 files changed, 234 insertions(+), 151 deletions(-) > > Range-diff against v2: > 1: 987fee4652 < -: ---------- t7408: replace `test_must_fail test_path_is_file` > 2: 417e808466 ! 1: 9a96f113e7 t: teach test_cmp_rev to accept ! for not-equals > @@ t/test-lib-functions.sh: test_cmp_rev () { > - if test "$r1" != "$r2" > + if test "$r1" "$inverted_op" "$r2" > then > ++ local comp_out > ++ if "x$inverted_op" = 'x=' > ++ then > ++ comp_out='the same' > ++ else > ++ comp_out='different' > ++ fi > cat >&4 <<-EOF > - error: two revisions point to different objects: > +- error: two revisions point to different objects: > ++ error: two revisions point to $comp_out objects: > + '$1': $r1 > + '$2': $r2 > + EOF > 3: 0a56980857 = 2: dfc86a8d9b t5520: improve test style > 4: dfa89ba1cb = 3: a1071038f5 t5520: use sq for test case names > 5: 9fac3dff83 = 4: 0af3f5027b t5520: let sed open its own input > 6: c6ca45eb17 = 5: b696ff0a67 t5520: replace test -f with test-lib functions > 7: 830a8212ae = 6: d2e49fd990 t5520: remove spaces after redirect operator > 8: 3d982230be = 7: fcfc3226f8 t5520: use test_line_count where possible > 9: 2bca4f046d = 8: 86dafc7b54 t5520: replace test -{n,z} with test-lib functions > 10: 1a54db1d5c = 9: bf9b5023a3 t5520: use test_cmp_rev where possible > 11: 52cf4f0d0f = 10: bfabf8ceff t5520: test single-line files by git with test_cmp > 12: 0cfabb201c = 11: 56bcbf3047 t5520: don't put git in upstream of pipe > 13: b2d0ce21c8 = 12: e9d50b8bb0 t5520: replace subshell cat comparison with test_cmp > 14: 5aac40a029 = 13: 9db0fc2156 t5520: remove redundant lines in test cases > 15: 2c0d3ac416 = 14: a721d5f119 t5520: replace `! git` with `test_must_fail git` > -- > 2.24.0.rc0.197.g0926ab8072 >
Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes: > There haven't been any comments in a couple days so I think this > patchset is ready for inclusion. It's not like we are in a hurry that we need to fast-forward a topic like this one (i.e. general improvement and clean-up, rather than fixing regressions introduced in the cycle), so "a couple of days" is probably being too impatient. We'd prefer a positive ack or two. Thanks.
Hi Junio, On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:44:52PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes: > > > There haven't been any comments in a couple days so I think this > > patchset is ready for inclusion. > > It's not like we are in a hurry that we need to fast-forward a topic > like this one (i.e. general improvement and clean-up, rather than > fixing regressions introduced in the cycle), so "a couple of days" > is probably being too impatient. Since v2.24.0 has been released, would now be a good time to queue this patchset? Thanks, Denton > > We'd prefer a positive ack or two. > > Thanks.
Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:44:52PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > There haven't been any comments in a couple days so I think this >> > patchset is ready for inclusion. >> >> It's not like we are in a hurry that we need to fast-forward a topic >> like this one (i.e. general improvement and clean-up, rather than >> fixing regressions introduced in the cycle), so "a couple of days" >> is probably being too impatient. > > Since v2.24.0 has been released, would now be a good time to queue this > patchset? We'd prefer a positive ack or two. Since they are rather ancient messages in Git timescale, perhaps send a new version that is rebased (and retested) on top of 2.24 to ask for reviews? Thanks.