From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
To: Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@gmail.com>
Cc: Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] t/t5520: modify tests to reduce common code
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:01:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPig+cQ3gaAdKU0M3v4q5AzvQSTciwHYv7fAAdCGTKYoOkJTow@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1459258200-32444-5-git-send-email-mehul.jain2029@gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@gmail.com> wrote:
> t/t5520: modify tests to reduce common code
As this is indeed a patch, "modify" is implied. Perhaps:
t5520: factor out common code
> There exist three groups of tests which have repetitive lines of code.
>
> Introduce two functions test_rebase_autostash() and
> test_rebase_no_autostash() to reduce the number of lines. Also introduce
> loops to futher reduce the current implementation.
This patch is doing so much that it's difficult to review for
correctness. Taking [1] into consideration, better would be to split
it into at least three patches:
1. Factor out code into test_rebase_autostash() and modify the four
tests to call it.
2. Factor out code into test_rebase_autostash_fail() and modify the
three tests to call it.
3. Fold the two "pull $i (without --rebase) is illegal" tests into a for-loop.
[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/289434/focus=289860
> Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@gmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t5520-pull.sh b/t/t5520-pull.sh
> @@ -9,6 +9,24 @@ modify () {
> +test_rebase_no_autostash () {
> + git reset --hard before-rebase &&
> + echo dirty >new_file &&
> + git add new_file &&
> + test_must_fail git pull --rebase --no-autostash . copy 2>err &&
> + test_i18ngrep "Cannot pull with rebase: Your index contains uncommitted changes." err
In the spirit of patch 3/5 and [1], you could grep for a substring
rather than the full message, but that's a minor point, not worth a
re-roll.
test_i18ngrep "uncommitted changes" err
> +}
> @@ -256,75 +274,39 @@ test_expect_success 'pull --rebase succeeds with dirty working directory and reb
> +for i in true false
> + do
> + test_expect_success "pull --rebase --autostash & rebase.autostash=$i" '
> + test_config rebase.autostash $i &&
> + test_rebase_autostash
> + '
> + done
I don't care too strongly, but I'm not convinced that this for-loop is
buying you much for these two cases since each test already has been
reduced to two simple lines, and the added abstraction of the for-loop
increases cognitive load a bit.
> +for i in --autostash --no-autostash
> + do
> + test_expect_success "pull $i (without --rebase) is illegal" '
> + test_must_fail git pull $i . copy 2>actual &&
> + test_i18ngrep "only valid with --rebase" actual
> + '
> + done
You might then ask why I suggested[1] the for-loop in this case but
not for the true/false case. Even though these are also two-line
tests, they are not quite as simple as two lines down to which the
true/false tests devolve. Anyhow, this alone is not worth a re-roll.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-29 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-29 13:29 [PATCH 0/5] modify tests for --[no-]autostash option Mehul Jain
2016-03-29 13:29 ` [PATCH 1/5] t/t5520: change rebase.autoStash to rebase.autostash Mehul Jain
2016-03-29 20:06 ` Eric Sunshine
2016-03-29 13:29 ` [PATCH 2/5] t/t5520: explicitly unset rebase.autostash Mehul Jain
2016-03-29 20:16 ` Eric Sunshine
2016-03-29 13:29 ` [PATCH 3/5] t/t5520: use test_i18ngrep instead of test_cmp Mehul Jain
2016-03-29 20:27 ` Eric Sunshine
2016-03-29 13:29 ` [PATCH 4/5] t/t5520: modify tests to reduce common code Mehul Jain
2016-03-29 20:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-03-29 21:01 ` Eric Sunshine [this message]
2016-03-29 13:30 ` [PATCH 5/5] t/t5520: test --[no-]autostash with pull.rebase=true Mehul Jain
2016-03-29 21:16 ` Eric Sunshine
2016-03-30 19:00 ` Mehul Jain
2016-03-30 20:31 ` Eric Sunshine
2016-04-01 10:27 ` Mehul Jain
2016-04-03 19:28 ` Eric Sunshine
2016-04-04 16:42 ` Mehul Jain
2016-04-04 16:52 ` Matthieu Moy
2016-04-04 17:36 ` Mehul Jain
2016-04-04 17:48 ` Eric Sunshine
2016-04-04 18:25 ` Matthieu Moy
2016-04-04 18:21 ` Matthieu Moy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAPig+cQ3gaAdKU0M3v4q5AzvQSTciwHYv7fAAdCGTKYoOkJTow@mail.gmail.com \
--to=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
--cc=Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=mehul.jain2029@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).