Re: [PATCH] t1503: test rev-parse --verify --quiet with deleted reflogs

[Fabian Ruch <bafain@gmail.com>]

Hi David,

On 09/14/2014 10:30 AM, David Aguilar wrote:
> Ensure that rev-parse --verify --quiet is silent when asked
> about deleted reflog entries.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com>
> ---
> This verifies and depends on "refs: make rev-parse --quiet actually quiet".
> 
>  t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh b/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh
> index 813cc1b..731c21c 100755
> --- a/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh
> +++ b/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh
> @@ -83,6 +83,15 @@ test_expect_success 'fails silently when using -q' '
>  	test -z "$(cat error)"
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'fails silently when using -q with deleted reflogs' '
> +	ref=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
> +	: >.git/logs/refs/test &&
> +	git update-ref -m test refs/test "$ref" &&

I'm just curious, why not simply

   git branch test

?

> +	git reflog delete --updateref --rewrite refs/test@{0} &&
> +	test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify --quiet refs/test@{0} 2>error &&

Is it a shortcoming of the specification that it doesn't consider
whatever might be written to stdout? Is it acceptable that if the
git-rev-parse command succeeds, the error message from test_must_fail
will be written to the file "error" and, therefore, somewhat hidden from
the user running the tests?

> +	test -z "$(cat error)"

test(1) comes with an option (-s) to perform such tests and test-lib.sh
defines test_must_be_empty which additionally outputs the given file's
contents if its not empty.

> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'no stdout output on error' '
>  	test -z "$(git rev-parse --verify)" &&
>  	test -z "$(git rev-parse --verify foo)" &&
> 

Kind regards,
   Fabian