Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] t5574: test porcelain output of atomic fetch

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2011 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:33:11PM +0800, Jiang Xin wrote:
> From: Jiang Xin <zhiyou.jx@alibaba-inc.com>
[snip]
> @@ -91,36 +85,61 @@ test_expect_success 'fetch porcelain output' '
>  	git checkout force-updated &&
>  	git reset --hard HEAD~ &&
>  	test_commit --no-tag force-update-new &&
> -	FORCE_UPDATED_NEW=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
> -
> -	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> -	- $MAIN_OLD $ZERO_OID refs/forced/deleted-branch
> -	- $MAIN_OLD $ZERO_OID refs/unforced/deleted-branch
> -	  $MAIN_OLD $FAST_FORWARD_NEW refs/unforced/fast-forward
> -	! $FORCE_UPDATED_OLD $FORCE_UPDATED_NEW refs/unforced/force-updated
> -	* $ZERO_OID $MAIN_OLD refs/unforced/new-branch
> -	  $MAIN_OLD $FAST_FORWARD_NEW refs/forced/fast-forward
> -	+ $FORCE_UPDATED_OLD $FORCE_UPDATED_NEW refs/forced/force-updated
> -	* $ZERO_OID $MAIN_OLD refs/forced/new-branch
> -	  $MAIN_OLD $FAST_FORWARD_NEW refs/remotes/origin/fast-forward
> -	+ $FORCE_UPDATED_OLD $FORCE_UPDATED_NEW refs/remotes/origin/force-updated
> -	* $ZERO_OID $MAIN_OLD refs/remotes/origin/new-branch
> -	EOF
> -
> -	# Execute a dry-run fetch first. We do this to assert that the dry-run
> -	# and non-dry-run fetches produces the same output. Execution of the
> -	# fetch is expected to fail as we have a rejected reference update.
> -	test_must_fail git -C porcelain fetch \
> -		--porcelain --dry-run --prune origin $refspecs >actual &&
> -	test_cmp expect actual &&
> -
> -	# And now we perform a non-dry-run fetch.
> -	test_must_fail git -C porcelain fetch \
> -		--porcelain --prune origin $refspecs >actual 2>stderr &&
> -	test_cmp expect actual &&
> -	test_must_be_empty stderr
> +	FORCE_UPDATED_NEW=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
>  '
>  
> +for opt in off on
> +do
> +	case $opt in
> +	on)
> +		opt=--atomic
> +		;;
> +	off)
> +		opt=
> +		;;
> +	esac

Nit: you could also do `for opt in "--atomic" ""` directly to get rid of
this case statement. Not sure whether this is worth a reroll though,
probably not.

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]