Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Add tests for describe with --work-tree

[Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 08:13:51AM +0100, Sebastian Staudt wrote:
> Am So., 27. Jan. 2019 um 01:07 Uhr schrieb Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 3:51 AM Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The dirty ones are already passing, but just because describe is comparing
> > > with the wrong working tree.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  t/t6120-describe.sh | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/t/t6120-describe.sh b/t/t6120-describe.sh
> > > index d639d94696..9a6bd1541f 100755
> > > --- a/t/t6120-describe.sh
> > > +++ b/t/t6120-describe.sh
> > > @@ -28,6 +28,24 @@ check_describe () {
> > >         '
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +check_describe_worktree () {
> > > +  cd "$TEST_DIRECTORY"
> >
> > Strange alignment. We normally do it in a subshell...
> 
> Sure, will fix this.
> 
> >
> > > +       expect="$1"
> > > +       shift
> > > +       R=$(git --git-dir "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/.git" --work-tree "$TRASH_DIRECTORY" describe "$@" 2>err.actual)
> >
> > These commands should be executed inside test_expect_success, not
> > outside. And you need to chain commands with && to make sure if
> > something breaks, then the whole test will fai.
> >
> > If it's too ugly to generate test_expect_success with a shell
> > function, then just write a shell function that "describe" and compare
> > (i.e. the test body). Then you can write something like this later
> >
> > test_expect_sucesss 'describe with --worktree foo' '
> >         check_describe_worktree foo
> > '
> >
> > and check_describe_worktree can now do
> >
> > ( cd "$TEST_DIRECTORY" && .... )
> >
> >
> 
> My function is a modified version of check_describe().

Whoa. That function is 12 years old! I think our style has evolved a
bit since then.

> Which does the same thing. I‘m not really experienced in Shell
> programming, so I didn‘t see a cleaner way.
>
> But having the cd commands in the && chain looks broken as it would
> break the following tests when one test fails and the code was executed
> in the wrong directory afterwards.

I mean chaining within a test. This is to make sure any failure
triggers the test failure (as it should, if some command is expected
to fail, we have other ways to catch it).

I would start with something simple, not using shell function at
all. Something like this as an example (I added run_describe() because
that "git" command becomes too long). Have a look at the "do's and
don'ts" in t/README too.

-- 8< --
diff --git a/t/t6120-describe.sh b/t/t6120-describe.sh
index d639d94696..646bedf4e9 100755
--- a/t/t6120-describe.sh
+++ b/t/t6120-describe.sh
@@ -28,6 +28,10 @@ check_describe () {
 	'
 }
 
+run_describe() {
+	git --git-dir "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/.git" --work-tree "$TRASH_DIRECTORY" describe "$@"
+}
+
 test_expect_success setup '
 
 	test_tick &&
@@ -145,6 +149,14 @@ check_describe A-* HEAD
 
 check_describe "A-*[0-9a-f]" --dirty
 
+test_expect_success 'describe with --work-tree --dirty' '
+	(
+		cd "$TEST_DIRECTORY" &&
+		run_describe --dirty 2>err.actual >actual &&
+		grep "^A-.*[0-9a-f]$" actual
+	)
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'set-up dirty work tree' '
 	echo >>file
 '
-- 8< --

BTW, careful about _success or _failure. You need to make sure bisect
is not broken. If you add a test to confirm a broken case then it
should be test_expect_failure (and the test suite will pass). Then
when you fix it you can flip it to test_expect_success.
--
Duy