Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] t5548: new test cases for push --porcelain and --dry-run

[Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 4:26 PM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 01:15:32AM +0800, Jiang Xin wrote:
> > From: Jiang Xin <zhiyou.jx@alibaba-inc.com>
> >
> > Refactor t5548 and add new test cases for git-push with both --porcelain
> > and --dry-run flags in order to cover the issues reported by Patrick.
> >
> > When executing git-push(1) with the "--porcelain" flag, then we will
> > print updated references in a machine-readable format that looks like
> > this:
> >
> > To destination
> > =   refs/heads/noop:refs/heads/noop [up to date]
> > !   refs/heads/rejected:refs/heads/rejected [rejected] (atomic push failed)
> > !   refs/heads/noff:refs/heads/(off (non-fast-forward)
> > Done
> >
> > The final "Done" stanza was introduced via 77555854be (git-push: make
> > git push --porcelain print "Done", 2010-02-26), where it was printed
> > "unless any errors have occurred". For the purpose of the "Done" line,
> > knowing a ref will be rejected in a --dry-run does not count as an
> > error. Actual rejections in non --dry-run pushes do count as errors.
> >
> > The new test cases will be used in the next commit to protect the above
> > behaviors of porcelain output of git push.
>
> It's a bit hard to make sense of this commit: does it introduce new
> tests? Does it refactor existing tests? Does it change the test setup?
> It seems to be a mixture of all of these, which makes it hard to see
> what the actual change is.
>
> I'd propose to split up this commit into multiple ones: one that
> introduces `restore_upstream()`, one that adapts the test data, and one
> that introduces new tests.

I've been quite busy lately, but I plan to revisit this next week,
incorporating both your and Junio's suggestions. Thank you for your
input!

>
> Patrick