Hi David,
On 09/14/2014 10:30 AM, David Aguilar wrote:
> Ensure that rev-parse --verify --quiet is silent when asked
> about deleted reflog entries.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Aguilar <[email protected]>
> ---
> This verifies and depends on "refs: make rev-parse --quiet actually quiet".
>
> t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh b/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh
> index 813cc1b..731c21c 100755
> --- a/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh
> +++ b/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh
> @@ -83,6 +83,15 @@ test_expect_success 'fails silently when using -q' '
> test -z "$(cat error)"
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'fails silently when using -q with deleted reflogs' '
> + ref=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
> + : >.git/logs/refs/test &&
> + git update-ref -m test refs/test "$ref" &&
I'm just curious, why not simply
git branch test
?
> + git reflog delete --updateref --rewrite refs/test@{0} &&
> + test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify --quiet refs/test@{0} 2>error &&
Is it a shortcoming of the specification that it doesn't consider
whatever might be written to stdout? Is it acceptable that if the
git-rev-parse command succeeds, the error message from test_must_fail
will be written to the file "error" and, therefore, somewhat hidden from
the user running the tests?
> + test -z "$(cat error)"
test(1) comes with an option (-s) to perform such tests and test-lib.sh
defines test_must_be_empty which additionally outputs the given file's
contents if its not empty.
> +'
> +
> test_expect_success 'no stdout output on error' '
> test -z "$(git rev-parse --verify)" &&
> test -z "$(git rev-parse --verify foo)" &&
>
Kind regards,
Fabian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
