Re: [PATCH] fetch: add new config option fetch.all

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 07:32:03PM +0100, Tamino Bauknecht wrote:
> > I don't feel particularly strongly about whether or not you reorganize
> > these if-statements, but we should change "argc == 0" to "!argc", which
> > matches the conventions of the rest of the project.
>
> Are you sure that I shouldn't use "argc == 0" here instead since it's also
> used in the next "else if" condition? Or is the goal to gradually transition
> to "!argc" in the entire code base?
> I agree with keeping the diff minimal, will change that to your suggestion.

See Documentation/CodingGuidelines.txt for more information about the
Git project's style guidelines, but in short: yes, any x == 0 should be
replaced with !x instead within if-statements.

> > This should be `cat >expect <<-\EOF` (without the space between the
> > redirect and heredoc, as well as indicating that the heredoc does not
> > need any shell expansions).
>
> Will do so, thanks.
> I tried to match the existing test cases as closely as possible, but if they
> are outdated, it might be better to use the more recent structure.

Junio notes in the thread further up that it is OK to imitate the
existing style of tests. I don't disagree, but I personally think it's
OK to introduce new tests in a better style without touching the
existing ones in the same patch (or requiring a preparatory patch to the
same effect).

> > It looks like these tests match the existing style of the test suite,
> > but they are somewhat out of date with respect to our more modern
> > standards. I would probably write this like:
> >
> >      test_expect_success 'git fetch --all (works with fetch.all = true)' '
> >        git clone one test10 &&
> >        test_config -C test10 fetch.all true &&
> >        for r in one two three
> >        do
> >          git -C test10 remote add $r ../$r || return 1
> >        done &&
> >        git -C test10 fetch --all &&
> >        git -C test10 branch -r >actual &&
> >        test_cmp expect actual
> >      '
>
> I think I'd prefer having the "actual" (and maybe also "expected") output in
> the repository so that it won't be overwritten by the next test case.

Very reasonable.

> Thanks for the great review, will send an updated patch later.

Thanks for working on this!

Thanks,
Taylor