From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add testcase for merging in a CRLF repo, showing that conflict file is in LF only Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:05:58 +0200 Message-ID: <484D46D6.9040900@viscovery.net> References: <"Storm-Olsen*"@MHS> <26299.4828321554$1213013668@news.gmane.org> <484D3225.3020900@viscovery.net> <484D424C.3010002@trolltech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git , Junio C Hamano To: Marius Storm-Olsen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 09 17:08:46 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K5iy5-0004s4-JT for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:07:34 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755979AbYFIPGD (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:06:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756633AbYFIPGD (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:06:03 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:60057 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755823AbYFIPGB (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:06:01 -0400 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1K5iwX-0001JQ-Eh; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:05:57 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6226C4; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:05:57 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <484D424C.3010002@trolltech.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Marius Storm-Olsen schrieb: > Johannes Sixt said the following on 09.06.2008 15:37: >> Marius Storm-Olsen schrieb: >>> An LF only conflict file results in the resolved file being in LF, >>> the commit is in LF and a warning saying that LF will be replaced >>> by CRLF, and the working dir ends up with a mix of CRLF and LF files. >> >> After reading these 3 lines I've no idea what you are talking about. Can >> you translate this to English, please? ;-) > > Certainly :-) > It means that if you work on a repo with core.autocrlf == true, you'd > expect every text file to have CRLF EOLs. However, if you by some > operation, get a conflict, then the conflicted file has LF EOLs. > Now, of course you'd go about resolving the files conflict, and then > 'git add '. When you do that, you'll get the warning saying that > LF will be replaced by CRLF. Then you commit. The end result is that you > have a workingdir with a mix of LF and CRLF files, which after some more > operations may trigger a "whole file changed" diff, due to the > workingdir file now having LF EOLs. Aha! Care to write it this way in the commit message in the next round? ;) >>> Sorry, no patch to actually *fix* the problem. >> >> Then you should use test_expect_failure instead of test_expect_success. >> And maybe also mention it in the commit message. > > Well, the test case is written in a way that it *should* pass (iow, it > _expects_ a success), but it currently doesn't. So, the goal is that > someone, who is more intimate with the code, can just run the testcase > until it passes (fixing in between each run, of course ;-) test_expect_failure has changed its meaning. It's now used to say precisly what you describe here. It means: "We should expect this command sequence to complete successfully, but we know that there is a bug in a git command, and hence we must expect failure until it is fixed." Such a test is marked as "still broken", and the test run is not interrupted. If the bug is fixed, the test is marked as "FIXED" until the 'test_expect_failure' is turned into 'test_expect_success'. >>> +test_expect_success 'Check that conflict file is CRLF' ' >>> + git reset --hard a && >>> + ! git merge side && >> >> test_must_fail git merge side && > > Ah, I checked a few other testcases, where I saw the ! construct. I > don't mind changing it, if it's important. Does it add 'feature' to the > testcase by using test_must_fail, instead of '!' ? '! git cmd' says that any unusual exit is ok, even a segfault and incorrect usage. 'test_must_fail git cmd' says that only deliberate error exits are ok. -- Hannes