Tiago Botelho <tiagonbote...@gmail.com> writes: > diff --git a/bisect.c b/bisect.c > index 4eafc8262..e58cb8d62 100644 > --- a/bisect.c > +++ b/bisect.c > @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ static const char *term_good; > * > * We care just barely enough to avoid recursing for > * non-merge entries. > + * > + * Note: This function does not support the usage --first-parent. > */
Hmph, is this because we know --first-parent codepath currently does not call this function, so we do not bother to prepare this function to be called from --first-parent codepath? I am not saying that we must prepare this function to be callable with --first-parent; if I have to wonder why the above comment is there and what it is trying to say, I suspect most other readers would, too, so... > diff --git a/t/t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh b/t/t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh > index a66140803..774d9a4fd 100755 > --- a/t/t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh > +++ b/t/t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh > @@ -263,4 +263,41 @@ test_expect_success 'rev-parse --bisect can default to > good/bad refs' ' > test_cmp expect.sorted actual.sorted > ' > > +# We generate the following commit graph: > +# > +# B - C > +# / \ > +# A FX > +# \ / > +# D - EX > + > +test_expect_success 'setup' ' > + test_commit A && > + test_commit B && > + test_commit C && > + git reset --hard A && > + test_commit D && > + test_commit EX && > + test_merge FX C > +' > + > +test_output_expect_success "--bisect --first-parent" 'git rev-list --bisect > --first-parent FX ^A' <<EOF > +$(git rev-parse EX) > +EOF > + > +test_output_expect_success "--bisect-vars --first-parent" 'git rev-list > --bisect-vars --first-parent FX ^A' <<EOF > +bisect_rev='$(git rev-parse EX)' > +bisect_nr=1 > +bisect_good=0 > +bisect_bad=1 > +bisect_all=3 > +bisect_steps=1 > +EOF > + > +test_output_expect_success "--bisect-all --first-parent" 'git rev-list > --bisect-all --first-parent FX ^A' <<EOF > +$(git rev-parse EX) (dist=1) > +$(git rev-parse D) (dist=1) > +$(git rev-parse FX) (dist=0) > +EOF > + These are all good basic tests, but can you come up with a test that demonstrates breakage in the previous round that has been fixed in this version of the patch? Thanks.
