On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not an improvement in the test coverage but it helps in making
> it explicit as to what exactly would be the error as other tests are
> focussed on testing other things.
It's not clear why you consider this as *not* improving test coverage.
> Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> @@ -894,4 +894,21 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start takes options and revs
> in any order' '
> +test_expect_success 'git bisect reset cleans bisection state properly' '
> + git bisect reset &&
> + git bisect start &&
> + git bisect good $HASH1 &&
> + git bisect bad $HASH4 &&
> + git bisect reset &&
> + test -z "$(git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*")" &&
I wonder if this would be more easily read as:
git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*" >actual &&
test_must_be_empty actual &&
> + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_EXPECTED_REV" &&
> + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK" &&
> + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG" &&
> + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN" &&
> + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS" &&
> + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" &&
> + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_HEAD" &&
> + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START"
Is it the intention that these should verify that the files don't
exist? Maybe use test_path_is_missing() instead?
> +'
> +
> test_done
--
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
