Message ID | pull.1647.v2.git.git.1705695540.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Group reffiles tests | expand |
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 08:18:48PM +0000, John Cai via GitGitGadget wrote: > This series groups REFFILES specific tests together. These tests are > currently grouped together across the test suite based on functionality. > However, since they exercise low-level behavior specific to the refs backend > being used (in these cases, the ref-files backend), group them together > based on which refs backend they test. This way, in the near future when the > reftables backend gets upstreamed we can add tests that exercise the > reftables backend close by in the t06xx area. > > These patches also remove the REFFILES prerequisite, since all the tests in > t06xx are reffiles specific. In the near future, once the reftable backend > is upstreamed, all the tests in t06xx will be forced to run with the > reffiles backend. > > Changes since V1: > > * Moved some pack-refs tests to t0601 instead of t0600 > * Clarified some commit messages > * Converted a test to be refs-backend agnostic > * Other minor rearranging of tests I've got two minor nits, but other than that this looks good to me. I've also verified that all tests continue to pass with the current version of the reftable backend. There's a minor merge conflict with db4192c364 (t: mark tests regarding git-pack-refs(1) to be backend specific, 2024-01-10). This conflict comes from the fact that both patch series add the REFFILES prereq to t3210, semantically the changes are the same. So it doesn't quite matter which of both versions we retain as they both do the same. Patrick
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes: > I've got two minor nits, but other than that this looks good to me. I've > also verified that all tests continue to pass with the current version > of the reftable backend. OK. I've squashed all the nits from you and Karthik into the copy in my tree. If there is nothing else, let's declare a victory and merge the topic down to 'next' soonish. > There's a minor merge conflict with db4192c364 (t: mark tests regarding > git-pack-refs(1) to be backend specific, 2024-01-10). This conflict > comes from the fact that both patch series add the REFFILES prereq to > t3210, semantically the changes are the same. So it doesn't quite matter > which of both versions we retain as they both do the same. Yup, that is what I've been resolving them. Thanks.
Hi Junio, On 22 Jan 2024, at 19:01, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes: > >> I've got two minor nits, but other than that this looks good to me. I've >> also verified that all tests continue to pass with the current version >> of the reftable backend. > > OK. I've squashed all the nits from you and Karthik into the copy > in my tree. If there is nothing else, let's declare a victory and > merge the topic down to 'next' soonish. Thank you for doing these tedious corrections! > >> There's a minor merge conflict with db4192c364 (t: mark tests regarding >> git-pack-refs(1) to be backend specific, 2024-01-10). This conflict >> comes from the fact that both patch series add the REFFILES prereq to >> t3210, semantically the changes are the same. So it doesn't quite matter >> which of both versions we retain as they both do the same. > > Yup, that is what I've been resolving them. > > Thanks. thanks John