| Message ID | 58347a962438852be0d37c3957686ea5000b2dbd.1536697263.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add coverage for 'git format-patch --range-diff' single-patch case | expand |
"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > > The commit 40ce4160 "format-patch: allow --range-diff to apply to > a lone-patch" added the ability to see a range-diff as commentary > after the commit message of a single patch series (i.e. [PATCH] > instead of [PATCH X/N]). However, this functionality was not > covered by a test case. > > Add a simple test case that checks that a range-diff is written as > commentary to the patch. > > Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > --- > t/t3206-range-diff.sh | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > index 3d7a2d8a4d..05ef3263d2 100755 > --- a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > +++ b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > @@ -154,4 +154,9 @@ do > ' > done > > +test_expect_success 'format-patch --range-diff as commentary' ' > + git format-patch --stdout --range-diff=HEAD~1 HEAD~1 >actual && > + grep -A 1 -e "\-\-\-" actual | grep "Range-diff:" Isn't "grep -A" GNUism?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:21 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > > The commit 40ce4160 "format-patch: allow --range-diff to apply to > a lone-patch" added the ability to see a range-diff as commentary > after the commit message of a single patch series (i.e. [PATCH] > instead of [PATCH X/N]). However, this functionality was not > covered by a test case. > > Add a simple test case that checks that a range-diff is written as > commentary to the patch. > > Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > --- > t/t3206-range-diff.sh | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > index 3d7a2d8a4d..05ef3263d2 100755 > --- a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > +++ b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > @@ -154,4 +154,9 @@ do > ' > done > > +test_expect_success 'format-patch --range-diff as commentary' ' > + git format-patch --stdout --range-diff=HEAD~1 HEAD~1 >actual && This is an interesting use of range-diff, as it basically tells us "Range-diff: This is a new patch", but it works to make sure there is a range diff section. (I shortly wondered if we would ever omit the range diff for "obvious" cases or word it differently) > + grep -A 1 -e "\-\-\-" actual | grep "Range-diff:" So the first grep finds the three dashes, presumably those after the commit message/ but others as well, e.g. in --- a/<path> +++ b/<path> and then the second grep should find the string "Range-diff". By having the greps chained with a pipe, only one return code can be delivered to the test suite, and as we get the last commands return code, we get reported if we found the string in the preselected part. I was wondering if we could get away with just one command to check for that multi line pattern sed -n -e '/---/,/^Range/p' actual seems to detect that pattern, and prints from there on to the rest of the file. > +' > + > test_done > -- > gitgitgadget
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: >> +test_expect_success 'format-patch --range-diff as commentary' ' >> + git format-patch --stdout --range-diff=HEAD~1 HEAD~1 >actual && >> + grep -A 1 -e "\-\-\-" actual | grep "Range-diff:" > > Isn't "grep -A" GNUism? Sorry for short-write(2) X-<. Perhaps sed -ne "/^---$/,+1/s/^Range-diff:/&/p" or something along that line.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:26 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: > The commit 40ce4160 "format-patch: allow --range-diff to apply to > a lone-patch" added the ability to see a range-diff as commentary > after the commit message of a single patch series (i.e. [PATCH] > instead of [PATCH X/N]). However, this functionality was not > covered by a test case. > > Add a simple test case that checks that a range-diff is written as > commentary to the patch. > > Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > --- > diff --git a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > @@ -154,4 +154,9 @@ do > +test_expect_success 'format-patch --range-diff as commentary' ' > + git format-patch --stdout --range-diff=HEAD~1 HEAD~1 >actual && > + grep -A 1 -e "\-\-\-" actual | grep "Range-diff:" > +' Aside from Junio's and Stefan's comments... Patch 6/14 [1], in addition to checking that a solo patch contains an interdiff, takes the extra step of checking that individual patches _don't_ contain an interdiff when --cover-letter is used. I wonder if the same should be done here, though I don't feel too strongly about it. If you do go that route, it might make sense to move this test to t4014 as neighbor to the --interdiff tests. The reason 10/14 [2] added the "git format-patch --range-diff" test to t3206 instead of t4014 was so it could do a thorough check of the embedded range-diff by re-using the specially crafted test repo set up by t3206. Your new test is much looser, thus could be moved alongside the --interdiff tests. Not a big deal, though. Either way is fine. Thanks for working on this. [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180722095717.17912-7-sunshine@sunshineco.com/ [2]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180722095717.17912-11-sunshine@sunshineco.com/
On 9/11/2018 5:34 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:26 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget > <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: >> The commit 40ce4160 "format-patch: allow --range-diff to apply to >> a lone-patch" added the ability to see a range-diff as commentary >> after the commit message of a single patch series (i.e. [PATCH] >> instead of [PATCH X/N]). However, this functionality was not >> covered by a test case. >> >> Add a simple test case that checks that a range-diff is written as >> commentary to the patch. >> >> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> >> --- >> diff --git a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh >> @@ -154,4 +154,9 @@ do >> +test_expect_success 'format-patch --range-diff as commentary' ' >> + git format-patch --stdout --range-diff=HEAD~1 HEAD~1 >actual && >> + grep -A 1 -e "\-\-\-" actual | grep "Range-diff:" >> +' > Aside from Junio's and Stefan's comments... > > Patch 6/14 [1], in addition to checking that a solo patch contains an > interdiff, takes the extra step of checking that individual patches > _don't_ contain an interdiff when --cover-letter is used. I wonder if > the same should be done here, though I don't feel too strongly about > it. If you do go that route, it might make sense to move this test to > t4014 as neighbor to the --interdiff tests. The reason 10/14 [2] added > the "git format-patch --range-diff" test to t3206 instead of t4014 was > so it could do a thorough check of the embedded range-diff by re-using > the specially crafted test repo set up by t3206. Your new test is much > looser, thus could be moved alongside the --interdiff tests. Not a big > deal, though. Either way is fine. Thanks for working on this. > > [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180722095717.17912-7-sunshine@sunshineco.com/ > [2]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180722095717.17912-11-sunshine@sunshineco.com/ Thanks for these links! In particular, [2] uses this line to test the inter-diff appears: + test_i18ngrep "^Interdiff:$" 0001-fleep.patch && That's a better way to test, especially with the translation. It would be enough for my needs. Thanks, -Stolee P.S. Resending because apparently I had HTML in the last response
diff --git a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh index 3d7a2d8a4d..05ef3263d2 100755 --- a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh +++ b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh @@ -154,4 +154,9 @@ do ' done +test_expect_success 'format-patch --range-diff as commentary' ' + git format-patch --stdout --range-diff=HEAD~1 HEAD~1 >actual && + grep -A 1 -e "\-\-\-" actual | grep "Range-diff:" +' + test_done