| Message ID | c0c7171e3d523e5d4a0ac01810378447a38854da.1556226502.git.liu.denton@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | checkout: allow -b/-B to work on a merge base | expand |
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:10 PM Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> wrote: > Before, in t2018, if do_checkout failed to create `branch2`, the next > test-case would run `git branch -D branch2` but then fail because it was > expecting `branch2` to exist, even though it doesn't. As a result, an > early failure could cause a cascading failure of tests. > > Make test-case responsible for cleaning up their own branches so that > future tests can start with a sane environment. > > Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> > --- > diff --git a/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh b/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh > @@ -60,38 +60,36 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' ' > test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch, set to HEAD' ' > + test_when_finished test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 && > + test_when_finished git checkout branch1 && I'm aware that when-finished actions fire in reverse order but the inherent subtlety of ordering of these two invocations still caught me off-guard for a moment since they are reverse the order in which one logically thinks about the actions which need to be performed. I wonder if it would be easier to digest if written like this: test_when_finished ' git checkout branch1 && test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 ' && (Probably not worth a re-roll.)
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 06:34:07PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:10 PM Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> wrote: > > Before, in t2018, if do_checkout failed to create `branch2`, the next > > test-case would run `git branch -D branch2` but then fail because it was > > expecting `branch2` to exist, even though it doesn't. As a result, an > > early failure could cause a cascading failure of tests. > > > > Make test-case responsible for cleaning up their own branches so that > > future tests can start with a sane environment. > > > > Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> > > --- > > diff --git a/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh b/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh > > @@ -60,38 +60,36 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' ' > > test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch, set to HEAD' ' > > + test_when_finished test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 && > > + test_when_finished git checkout branch1 && > > I'm aware that when-finished actions fire in reverse order but the > inherent subtlety of ordering of these two invocations still caught me > off-guard for a moment since they are reverse the order in which one > logically thinks about the actions which need to be performed. I > wonder if it would be easier to digest if written like this: > > test_when_finished ' > git checkout branch1 && > test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 > ' && > > (Probably not worth a re-roll.) This sounds like a good idea. If Junio doesn't get around to it, I'll send a v1.5 of this patch later. Thanks for the suggestion!
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes: >> test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch, set to HEAD' ' >> + test_when_finished test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 && >> + test_when_finished git checkout branch1 && > > I'm aware that when-finished actions fire in reverse order but the > inherent subtlety of ordering of these two invocations still caught me > off-guard for a moment since they are reverse the order in which one > logically thinks about the actions which need to be performed. I > wonder if it would be easier to digest if written like this: > > test_when_finished ' > git checkout branch1 && > test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 > ' && Perhaps. Be careful in choosing the quotes between sq and dq, though.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:50 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes: > > test_when_finished ' > > git checkout branch1 && > > test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 > > ' && > > Perhaps. Be careful in choosing the quotes between sq and dq, > though. Yep, thanks for catching my mistake. Definitely want double-quote, not single-quote.
diff --git a/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh b/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh index c5014ad9a6..fdb7fd282d 100755 --- a/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh +++ b/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh @@ -60,38 +60,36 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' ' ' test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch, set to HEAD' ' + test_when_finished test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 && + test_when_finished git checkout branch1 && do_checkout branch2 ' test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch, set to an explicit ref' ' - git checkout branch1 && - git branch -D branch2 && - + test_when_finished test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 && + test_when_finished git checkout branch1 && do_checkout branch2 $HEAD1 ' test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch with unmergeable changes fails' ' - git checkout branch1 && - - # clean up from previous test - git branch -D branch2 && - setup_dirty_unmergeable && test_must_fail do_checkout branch2 $HEAD1 && test_dirty_unmergeable ' test_expect_success 'checkout -f -b to a new branch with unmergeable changes discards changes' ' + test_when_finished test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 && + test_when_finished git checkout branch1 && + # still dirty and on branch1 do_checkout branch2 $HEAD1 "-f -b" && test_must_fail test_dirty_unmergeable ' test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch preserves mergeable changes' ' - git checkout branch1 && - - # clean up from previous test - git branch -D branch2 && + test_when_finished test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 && + test_when_finished git checkout branch1 && + test_when_finished git reset --hard && setup_dirty_mergeable && do_checkout branch2 $HEAD1 && @@ -99,27 +97,18 @@ test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch preserves mergeable changes' ' ' test_expect_success 'checkout -f -b to a new branch with mergeable changes discards changes' ' - # clean up from previous test - git reset --hard && - - git checkout branch1 && - - # clean up from previous test - git branch -D branch2 && - + test_when_finished git reset --hard HEAD && setup_dirty_mergeable && do_checkout branch2 $HEAD1 "-f -b" && test_must_fail test_dirty_mergeable ' test_expect_success 'checkout -b to an existing branch fails' ' - git reset --hard HEAD && - + test_when_finished git reset --hard HEAD && test_must_fail do_checkout branch2 $HEAD2 ' test_expect_success 'checkout -b to @{-1} fails with the right branch name' ' - git reset --hard HEAD && git checkout branch1 && git checkout branch2 && echo >expect "fatal: A branch named '\''branch1'\'' already exists." && @@ -160,6 +149,7 @@ test_expect_success 'checkout -f -B to an existing branch with unmergeable chang ' test_expect_success 'checkout -B to an existing branch preserves mergeable changes' ' + test_when_finished git reset --hard && git checkout branch1 && setup_dirty_mergeable && @@ -168,9 +158,6 @@ test_expect_success 'checkout -B to an existing branch preserves mergeable chang ' test_expect_success 'checkout -f -B to an existing branch with mergeable changes discards changes' ' - # clean up from previous test - git reset --hard && - git checkout branch1 && setup_dirty_mergeable &&
Before, in t2018, if do_checkout failed to create `branch2`, the next test-case would run `git branch -D branch2` but then fail because it was expecting `branch2` to exist, even though it doesn't. As a result, an early failure could cause a cascading failure of tests. Make test-case responsible for cleaning up their own branches so that future tests can start with a sane environment. Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> --- t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh | 39 +++++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)