Hi Bert,
> Subject: format-patch: document and exercise that -o does only create the
> trailing directory
s/does only create/only creates/ ?
Anyway, as a prepatory patch, I don't think that it's necessary. Maybe
it's just me but I assume that most tools create at most one directory
deep. Even mkdir won't created nested dirs unless you pass `-p`. I
dunno.
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:26:11PM +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Bert Wesarg <bert.wes...@googlemail.com>
> ---
> Documentation/config/format.txt | 3 ++-
> Documentation/git-format-patch.txt | 4 +++-
> t/t4014-format-patch.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/config/format.txt b/Documentation/config/format.txt
> index 414a5a8a9d..e17c5d6b0f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/config/format.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/config/format.txt
> @@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ format.coverLetter::
>
> format.outputDirectory::
> Set a custom directory to store the resulting files instead of the
> - current working directory.
> + current working directory. Only the trailing directory will be created
> + though.
>
> format.useAutoBase::
> A boolean value which lets you enable the `--base=auto` option of
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt
> b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt
> index b9b97e63ae..fe7492353e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt
> @@ -66,7 +66,9 @@ they are created in the current working directory. The
> default path
> can be set with the `format.outputDirectory` configuration option.
> The `-o` option takes precedence over `format.outputDirectory`.
> To store patches in the current working directory even when
> -`format.outputDirectory` points elsewhere, use `-o .`.
> +`format.outputDirectory` points elsewhere, use `-o .`. Note that only
> +the trailing directory will be created by Git, leading directories must
> +already exists.
>
> By default, the subject of a single patch is "[PATCH] " followed by
> the concatenation of lines from the commit message up to the first blank
> diff --git a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> index ca7debf1d4..bf2715a503 100755
> --- a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> +++ b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> @@ -1632,6 +1632,22 @@ test_expect_success 'From line has expected format' '
> test_cmp from filtered
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'format-patch -o with no leading directories' '
> + rm -fr patches &&
> + git format-patch -o patches master..side &&
> + test $(git rev-list master..side | wc -l) -eq $(ls patches | wc -l)
For test case you write, please use the following pattern:
git rev-list master..side >list &&
test_line_count = $(ls patches | wc -l) list
The first benefit is that we get to take advantage of the
test_line_count function that's already written for us. The second is
that when we write tests, we shouldn't put Git commands in the upstream
of a pipe because if they fail, their return codes will be lost and we
won't be able to fail the test properly.
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'format-patch -o with leading existing directories' '
> + git format-patch -o patches/side master..side &&
> + test $(git rev-list master..side | wc -l) -eq $(ls patches/side | wc -l)
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_failure 'format-patch -o with leading non-existing directories' '
> + rm -fr patches &&
> + git format-patch -o patches/side master..side
> +'
As above, I wouldn't really call this a bug in Git. I think we should
leave this test case off until the next patch.
> +
> test_expect_success 'format-patch format.outputDirectory option' '
> test_config format.outputDirectory patches &&
> rm -fr patches &&
> --
> 2.23.0.11.g242cf7f110
>
