Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: add test case for autocorrect in work tree for bare clone

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"Simon Gerber via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

>  t/t9005-help-autocorrect-worktree.sh | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don't we have existing test script for auto-correction?  Is it
sensible to waste a new fail for this single test?  I doubt it.

Perhaps appending after 9003 a new test instead?

> diff --git a/t/t9005-help-autocorrect-worktree.sh b/t/t9005-help-autocorrect-worktree.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 00000000000..4fecc8a8e01
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t9005-help-autocorrect-worktree.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +test_description='test autocorrect in work tree based on bare repository'
> +. ./test-lib.sh
> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup non-bare' '
> +	echo one >file &&
> +	git add file &&
> +	git commit -m one &&
> +	echo two >file &&
> +	git commit -a -m two
> +'

Wouldn't "test_commit" be simpler to use than rolling our own here?
If we piggy-back on set-up in an existing test script, there
probably is already a history the single test to attempt running
'git staut' can use.  After all, that test does not care an iota
what is in the history.

> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup bare' '
> +	git clone --bare . bare.git &&
> +	cd bare.git

Do not chdir around in a test script, especially in separate steps.

> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup worktree from bare' '
> +	git worktree add ../bare-wt &&
> +	cd ../bare-wt
> +'

Ditto.

Either do it in a subshell in a single step, or

	(
		git clone --bare . bare.git &&
		cd bare.git &&
		git worktree add ../worktree &&
		cd ../worktree &&
		git -c help.autocorrect=immediate staut
	)

use "git -C <over-there>" form, e.g.

	git clone --bare . bare.git &&
	git -C bare.git worktree add ../worktree &&
	git -C worktree -c help.autocorrect=immediate staut

> +test_expect_success 'autocorrect works in work tree created from bare repo' '

When patch 1/2 is applied without 2/2, this test_expect_success will
not be satisfied, breaking future bisection.

For a small change like this, have the code change *and* test that
verifies the new behaviour in a single step.  That way

 * you do not break bisection.

 * if somebody wants to cherry-pick the fix to an older maintenance
   tracks, they can do so by picking a single unit, fix and
   verification combined together.

 * acceptance or review can be done by checking the end-result and
   then tentatively reverting only the code change with something
   like

	$ git show -- ':!t/' | git apply -R

   and see the test that expects success actually fails without the fix.