[1/8] move worktree tests to t24*
diff mbox series

Message ID 20181209200449.16342-2-t.gummerer@gmail.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • introduce no-overlay and cached mode in git checkout
Related show

Commit Message

Thomas Gummerer Dec. 9, 2018, 8:04 p.m. UTC
The 'git worktree' command used to be just another mode in 'git
checkout', namely 'git checkout --to'.  When the tests for the latter
were retrofitted for the former, the test name was adjusted, but the
test number was kept, even though the test is testing a different
command now.  t/README states: "Second digit tells the particular
command we are testing.", so 'git worktree' should have a separate
number just for itself.

Move the worktree tests to t24* to adhere to that guideline. We're
going to make use of the free'd up numbers in a subsequent commit.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
---
 t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh}     | 0
 t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} | 0
 t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh}   | 0
 3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 rename t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh} (100%)
 rename t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} (100%)
 rename t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh} (100%)

Comments

Junio C Hamano Dec. 10, 2018, 3:48 a.m. UTC | #1
Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes:

> The 'git worktree' command used to be just another mode in 'git
> checkout', namely 'git checkout --to'.  When the tests for the latter
> were retrofitted for the former, the test name was adjusted, but the
> test number was kept, even though the test is testing a different
> command now.  t/README states: "Second digit tells the particular
> command we are testing.", so 'git worktree' should have a separate
> number just for itself.

That probably was written in the old world where there were only 10
commands in each category ;-) Nevertheless I have no problem with
this move (and I do not think there are in-flight topics in these
areas).

Thanks.

>
> Move the worktree tests to t24* to adhere to that guideline. We're
> going to make use of the free'd up numbers in a subsequent commit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
> ---
>  t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh}     | 0
>  t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} | 0
>  t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh}   | 0
>  3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  rename t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh} (100%)
>  rename t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} (100%)
>  rename t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh} (100%)
>
> diff --git a/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
> similarity index 100%
> rename from t/t2025-worktree-add.sh
> rename to t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
> diff --git a/t/t2026-worktree-prune.sh b/t/t2401-worktree-prune.sh
> similarity index 100%
> rename from t/t2026-worktree-prune.sh
> rename to t/t2401-worktree-prune.sh
> diff --git a/t/t2027-worktree-list.sh b/t/t2402-worktree-list.sh
> similarity index 100%
> rename from t/t2027-worktree-list.sh
> rename to t/t2402-worktree-list.sh
Duy Nguyen Dec. 10, 2018, 3:32 p.m. UTC | #2
On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:04 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The 'git worktree' command used to be just another mode in 'git
> checkout', namely 'git checkout --to'.  When the tests for the latter
> were retrofitted for the former, the test name was adjusted, but the
> test number was kept, even though the test is testing a different
> command now.  t/README states: "Second digit tells the particular
> command we are testing.", so 'git worktree' should have a separate
> number just for itself.
>
> Move the worktree tests to t24* to adhere to that guideline. We're
> going to make use of the free'd up numbers in a subsequent commit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
> ---
>  t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh}     | 0
>  t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} | 0
>  t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh}   | 0
>  3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  rename t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh} (100%)
>  rename t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} (100%)
>  rename t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh} (100%)

Heh.. I did the same thing (in my unsent switch-branch/restore-files
series) and even used the same 24xx range :D You probably want to move
t2028 and t2029 too (not sure if they have landed on 'master')
Thomas Gummerer Dec. 11, 2018, 9:50 p.m. UTC | #3
On 12/10, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:04 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The 'git worktree' command used to be just another mode in 'git
> > checkout', namely 'git checkout --to'.  When the tests for the latter
> > were retrofitted for the former, the test name was adjusted, but the
> > test number was kept, even though the test is testing a different
> > command now.  t/README states: "Second digit tells the particular
> > command we are testing.", so 'git worktree' should have a separate
> > number just for itself.
> >
> > Move the worktree tests to t24* to adhere to that guideline. We're
> > going to make use of the free'd up numbers in a subsequent commit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh}     | 0
> >  t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} | 0
> >  t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh}   | 0
> >  3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  rename t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh} (100%)
> >  rename t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} (100%)
> >  rename t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh} (100%)
> 
> Heh.. I did the same thing (in my unsent switch-branch/restore-files
> series) and even used the same 24xx range :D You probably want to move
> t2028 and t2029 too (not sure if they have landed on 'master')

:)  I unfortunately didn't have time to read the
switch-branch/restore-files series in detail, but good to know someone
thought the same way.  I started this work before t2028 and t2029
landed on master, so I failed to notice them.  But I'll rebase on
master and move these two tests as well, thanks for noticing.

> -- 
> Duy
Eric Sunshine Dec. 12, 2018, 1:26 p.m. UTC | #4
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:50 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:04 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Move the worktree tests to t24* to adhere to that guideline. We're
> > > going to make use of the free'd up numbers in a subsequent commit.
> >
> > Heh.. I did the same thing (in my unsent switch-branch/restore-files
> > series) and even used the same 24xx range :D You probably want to move
> > t2028 and t2029 too (not sure if they have landed on 'master')
>
> [...] good to know someone
> thought the same way.  I started this work before t2028 and t2029
> landed on master, so I failed to notice them.

The thought of renumbering the test script came up as early as
2015-06-30. See the last bullet point of [1], for instance.

[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/1435640202-95945-1-git-send-email-sunshine@sunshineco.com/
Duy Nguyen Dec. 12, 2018, 5:07 p.m. UTC | #5
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 2:27 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:50 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/10, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:04 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Move the worktree tests to t24* to adhere to that guideline. We're
> > > > going to make use of the free'd up numbers in a subsequent commit.
> > >
> > > Heh.. I did the same thing (in my unsent switch-branch/restore-files
> > > series) and even used the same 24xx range :D You probably want to move
> > > t2028 and t2029 too (not sure if they have landed on 'master')
> >
> > [...] good to know someone
> > thought the same way.  I started this work before t2028 and t2029
> > landed on master, so I failed to notice them.
>
> The thought of renumbering the test script came up as early as
> 2015-06-30. See the last bullet point of [1], for instance.
>
> [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/1435640202-95945-1-git-send-email-sunshine@sunshineco.com/

Ah good. I thought I was just being lazy and picked a random range to add tests.

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
similarity index 100%
rename from t/t2025-worktree-add.sh
rename to t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
diff --git a/t/t2026-worktree-prune.sh b/t/t2401-worktree-prune.sh
similarity index 100%
rename from t/t2026-worktree-prune.sh
rename to t/t2401-worktree-prune.sh
diff --git a/t/t2027-worktree-list.sh b/t/t2402-worktree-list.sh
similarity index 100%
rename from t/t2027-worktree-list.sh
rename to t/t2402-worktree-list.sh