| Message ID | 9ea38cd8e98890b8264696dfd647c1f9e709ae9e.1540494231.git.slawica92@hotmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3,1/3,Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name | expand |
Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes: > From: Slavica <slawica92@hotmail.com> Please make sure this matches your sign-off below. > This is part of enhancement request that ask for 'git stash' to work > even if 'user.name' and 'user.email' are not configured. > Due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably requires > 'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't. > The issue is discussed here: > https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u. As the four lines above summarize the issue being highlighted by the expect-failure rather well, the last two lines are unnecessary. Please remove them. Alternatively, you can place them after the three-dash lines we see below. > Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com> > --- > t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh > index 9e06494ba0..ae2c905343 100755 > --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh > +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh > @@ -1156,4 +1156,18 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' ' > test_path_is_file subdir/untracked > ' > > +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' ' > + test_commit 1 && Just being curious, but do we need a fresh commit created at this point in the test? Many tests before this one begin with "git reset" and then run "git stash" without ever creating commit themselves, instead relying on the fact that there already is at least one commit created in the "setup" phase of the test that a "stash" created can be made relative to. I do not think this test is all that special in that regard to require its own commit. > + test_config user.useconfigonly true && > + test_config stash.usebuiltin true && > + sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME && > + sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && > + sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME && > + sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL && > + test_unconfig user.email && There are trailing whitespaces on the line above. Please remove. Also, Don't be original in the form alone---all other tests in this file indent with a leading HT, not four SPs. Please match the style of surrounding code. > + test_unconfig user.name && > + echo changed >1.t && > + git stash > +' > + > test_done Thanks. Please do not reroll the next round at too rapid a pace.
On 26-Oct-18 3:13 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes: > >> From: Slavica <slawica92@hotmail.com> > Please make sure this matches your sign-off below. > >> This is part of enhancement request that ask for 'git stash' to work >> even if 'user.name' and 'user.email' are not configured. >> Due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably requires >> 'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't. >> The issue is discussed here: >> https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u. > As the four lines above summarize the issue being highlighted by the > expect-failure rather well, the last two lines are unnecessary. > Please remove them. Alternatively, you can place them after the > three-dash lines we see below. > >> Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com> >> --- >> t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh >> index 9e06494ba0..ae2c905343 100755 >> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh >> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh >> @@ -1156,4 +1156,18 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' ' >> test_path_is_file subdir/untracked >> ' >> >> +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' ' >> + test_commit 1 && > Just being curious, but do we need a fresh commit created at this > point in the test? Many tests before this one begin with "git reset" > and then run "git stash" without ever creating commit themselves, > instead relying on the fact that there already is at least one > commit created in the "setup" phase of the test that a "stash" > created can be made relative to. I do not think this test is all > that special in that regard to require its own commit. No, we don't need fresh commit here. Thank you for this and all other suggestions. I've changed test according to them. > >> + test_config user.useconfigonly true && >> + test_config stash.usebuiltin true && >> + sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME && >> + sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && >> + sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME && >> + sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL && >> + test_unconfig user.email && > There are trailing whitespaces on the line above. Please remove. > > Also, Don't be original in the form alone---all other tests in this > file indent with a leading HT, not four SPs. Please match the style > of surrounding code. > >> + test_unconfig user.name && >> + echo changed >1.t && >> + git stash >> +' >> + >> test_done > Thanks. Please do not reroll the next round at too rapid a pace. I've taken my time for next round, I am working on 2/3 and 3/3 parts as well. I wouldn't have sent this patch if I understood you well in previous reply. Thank you, Slavica. > > >
diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh index 9e06494ba0..ae2c905343 100755 --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh @@ -1156,4 +1156,18 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' ' test_path_is_file subdir/untracked ' +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' ' + test_commit 1 && + test_config user.useconfigonly true && + test_config stash.usebuiltin true && + sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME && + sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && + sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME && + sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL && + test_unconfig user.email && + test_unconfig user.name && + echo changed >1.t && + git stash +' + test_done