On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 09:58:26AM -0500, James wrote:

> +test_expect_success 'git clean -e --exclude-from' '
> +     rm -fr repo &&
> +     mkdir repo &&
> +     cd repo &&
> +     git init &&
> +     touch known 1 2 3 &&
> +     git add known &&
> +     echo 1 >> .git/clean-exclude &&
> +     git clean -f -e 2 --exclude-from=.git/clean-exclude &&
> +     test_path_is_file 1 &&
> +     test_path_is_file 2 &&
> +     test_path_is_missing 3 &&
> +     test_path_is_file known
> +'

This checks that we exclude the union of the "-e" and "--exclude-from"
parameters. What happens if one excludes a path and the other negates
the exclusion? How is the precedence handled? Is it based on order on
the command-line, or something else?

I do not have much of a preference myself, but it probably makes sense
to document and test it.

> +test_expect_success 'git clean --exclude-from --exclude-from' '
> +     rm -fr repo &&
> +     mkdir repo &&
> +     git init &&
> +     touch known 1 2 3 &&
> +     git add known &&
> +     cat >.git/clean-exclude1 <<-\EOF &&
> +     1
> +     EOF
> +     cat >.git/clean-exclude2 <<-\EOF &&
> +     2
> +     EOF
> +     git clean -f --exclude-from=.git/clean-exclude1 
> --exclude-from=.git/clean-exclude2 &&
> +     test_path_is_file 1 &&
> +     test_path_is_file 2 &&
> +     test_path_is_missing 3 &&
> +     test_path_is_file known
> +'

Ditto here (as the same "type", the only precedence that would make any
sense is command-line order here).

> +test_expect_success 'git clean --exclude-from=BADFILE' '
> +     rm -fr repo &&
> +     mkdir repo &&
> +     cd repo &&
> +     git init &&
> +     test_expect_code 128 git clean -f 
> --exclude-from=.git/clean-exclude-not-there
> +'

Do you actually care about the 128 here, or is just "it should exit with
failure"? If the latter, we usually use test_must_fail.

-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to