On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 05:47:44PM +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote: > > > > +test_expect_success 'format-patch -o with no leading directories' ' > > > > + rm -fr patches && > > > > + git format-patch -o patches master..side && > > > > + count=$(git rev-list --count master..side) && > > > > + ls patches >list && > > > > + test_line_count = $count list > > > > +' > > > > + > > > > +test_expect_success 'format-patch -o with leading existing > > > > directories' ' > > > > + git format-patch -o patches/side master..side && > > > > > > The previous test case creates the 'patches' directory and leaves it > > > behind, and this test implicitly relies on that directory to check > > > that 'format-patch -o' can deal with already existing directories. So > > > if the previous test case were to fail early or were not run at all > > > (e.g. './t4014-format-patch.sh -r 1,137'), then that directory > > > wouldn't exist, and, consequently, this test case would not check what > > > it was supposed to. > > > > > > I think it would be better to be more explicit and self-contained > > > about it, and create a leading directory in this test case: > > > > > > mkdir existing-dir && > > > git format-patch -o existing-dir/side master..size && > > > ls existing-dir/side >list && > > one question: How about removing this directory first, just to be > sure, that mkdir does create a directory?
I'm not sure I understand... Do you mean that a previous test might have already created and left a directory with the same name behind, and then this 'mkdir' would error out and thus fail the test? If yes, then you're right with your nitpicking on my nitpicking ;) Though instead of 'rm -rf'ing that directory I would suggest 'mkdir -p' to simply ignore it if it were to exist.
