Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
Slavica writes: > On 23-Oct-18 8:52 PM, Christian Couder wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:35 PM Slavica wrote: >>> This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even >>> if `user.name` is not configured. >>> The issue is discussed here: >>> https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u. >> We prefer commit messages that contain as much as possible all the >> information necessary to understand the patch without links to other >> places. >> >> It seems that only this email from you reached me. Did you send other >> emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3? >> >> [...] > > Okay, I will change that. This is my first patch and I am still adapting. > > Emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3 because aren't there because I am still > preparing them. > > (I didn't know if I had 3 patches in plan that they should be sent at > almost the same time.) It is more efficient for everybody involved. - You may discover that 1/3 you just (thought) finished was not sufficient while working on 2/3 and 3/3, and by the time you are pretty close to finishing 2/3 and 3/3, you may want to update 1/3 in a big way. Sending a premature version and having others to review is wasting everbody's time. - Your 1/3 might become perfect alone with help from others' reviews and your updates, but after that everybody may forget about it when you are ready to send out 2/3 and 3/3; if these three are truly related patches in a single topic, you would want to have what 1/3 did fresh in your reviewers' minds. You'd have to find the old message of 1/3 and make 2/3 and 3/3 responses to it to keep them properly threaded (which may take your time), and reviewers need to refresh their memory by going back to 1/3 before reviewing 2/3 and 3/3 One thing I learned twice while working in this project is that open source development is not a race to produce and show your product as quickly as possible. When I was an individual contributor, the project was young and there were many people with good and competing ideas working to achieve more-or-less the same goal. It felt like a competition to get *MY* version of the vision, design and implementation over others' adopted and one way to stay in the competition was to send things as quickly as possible. I didn't know better, and I think I ended up wasting many people's time that way. That changed when I became the maintainer, as (1) I no longer had to race with anybody ;-), and (2) I introduced the 'pu' (proposed update) system so that anything that was queued early can be discarded and replaced when a better thing come within a reasonable timeframe. And then I re-learned the same "this is not a race" lesson a couple of years ago, when I started working in a timezone several hours away from the most active participants for a few months at a time. I do not have to respond to a message I see on the list immediately, as it is too late to catch the sender who is already in bed ;-) So take your time and make sure what you are sending out can be reviewed the most efficiently. Completing 2/3 and 3/3 before sending 1/3 out to avoid having to redo 1/3 and avoid having reviewers to spend their time piecemeal is one thing. Making sure that the patch does not have style issues that distract reviewers' attention is another. Sitting on what you think you have completed for a few days allows you to review your product with fresh eyes before sending them out, which is another benefit of trying not to rush.
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
Johannes Schindelin writes: >> HOME is set to TRASH_DIRECTORY in t/test-lib.sh already, and we do >> so to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the >> user who happens to be running the test suite. > > My bad. I should have checked. I was under the impression that we set > `HOME` to the `t/` directory and initialized it. But you are right, of > course, and that subshell as well as the override of `HOME` are absolutely > unnecessary. I was afraid that I may be missing some future plans to update $TRASH_DIRECTORY/.gitconfig with "git config --global user.name Foo" etc. in an earlier part of the test script, which would have made the subshell and moving HOME elsewhere perfectly good ways to future proof the new test being added (in which case, in-code comment to say that near the assignment to HOME would have been a good improvement). Not that having them breaks the logic, but they distract the readers by making them wonder what is going on, so I think we can do without the subshell and assignment to HOME. Thanks.
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
Hi Junio, On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Slavica writes: > >> > >> > +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' ' > >> > +test_commit 1 && > >> > +test_config user.useconfigonly true && > >> > +test_config stash.usebuiltin true && > >> > +( > >> > +HOME=$(pwd)/none && > >> > +export HOME && > >> > >> What is the reason why this test needs to move HOME away from > >> TRASH_DIRECTORY (set in t/test-lib.sh)? > > > > This is to make sure that no user.name nor user.email is configured. That > > was my idea, hence I answer your question. > > HOME is set to TRASH_DIRECTORY in t/test-lib.sh already, and we do > so to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the > user who happens to be running the test suite. My bad. I should have checked. I was under the impression that we set `HOME` to the `t/` directory and initialized it. But you are right, of course, and that subshell as well as the override of `HOME` are absolutely unnecessary. Thanks, Dscho > > With that in place for ages, this test still moves HOME away from > TRASH_DIRECTORY, and that is totally unnecessary if it is only done > to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the user. > After all, this single test is not unique in its need to avoid > reading from user's $HOME/.gitconfig---so I expected there may be > other reasons. > > That is why I asked, and your response is not quite answering that > question. >
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
On 23-Oct-18 8:52 PM, Christian Couder wrote: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:35 PM Slavica wrote: This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured. The issue is discussed here: https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u. We prefer commit messages that contain as much as possible all the information necessary to understand the patch without links to other places. It seems that only this email from you reached me. Did you send other emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3? [...] Okay, I will change that. This is my first patch and I am still adapting. Emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3 because aren't there because I am still preparing them. (I didn't know if I had 3 patches in plan that they should be sent at almost the same time.) +( +HOME=$(pwd)/none && +export HOME && +unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME && +unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && +unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME && +unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL && +test_must_fail git config user.email && +echo changed >1.t && + git stash It seems that the above line is not indented like the previous ones. I don't know what is the reason, in my IDE everything seems fine, but I'll fix it. +) +' Thanks for contributing, Christian. You are welcome, Slavica
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Slavica writes: >> >> > +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' ' >> > +test_commit 1 && >> > +test_config user.useconfigonly true && >> > +test_config stash.usebuiltin true && >> > +( >> > +HOME=$(pwd)/none && >> > +export HOME && >> >> What is the reason why this test needs to move HOME away from >> TRASH_DIRECTORY (set in t/test-lib.sh)? > > This is to make sure that no user.name nor user.email is configured. That > was my idea, hence I answer your question. HOME is set to TRASH_DIRECTORY in t/test-lib.sh already, and we do so to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the user who happens to be running the test suite. With that in place for ages, this test still moves HOME away from TRASH_DIRECTORY, and that is totally unnecessary if it is only done to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the user. After all, this single test is not unique in its need to avoid reading from user's $HOME/.gitconfig---so I expected there may be other reasons. That is why I asked, and your response is not quite answering that question.
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
Hi Junio, On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Slavica writes: > > > +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' ' > > +test_commit 1 && > > +test_config user.useconfigonly true && > > +test_config stash.usebuiltin true && > > +( > > +HOME=$(pwd)/none && > > +export HOME && > > What is the reason why this test needs to move HOME away from > TRASH_DIRECTORY (set in t/test-lib.sh)? This is to make sure that no user.name nor user.email is configured. That was my idea, hence I answer your question. Ciao, Dscho > > > +unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME && > > +unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && > > +unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME && > > +unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL && > > +test_must_fail git config user.email && > > +echo changed >1.t && > > + git stash > > +) > > +' > > + > > test_done >
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
Slavica writes: > +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' ' > +test_commit 1 && > +test_config user.useconfigonly true && > +test_config stash.usebuiltin true && > +( > +HOME=$(pwd)/none && > +export HOME && What is the reason why this test needs to move HOME away from TRASH_DIRECTORY (set in t/test-lib.sh)? > +unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME && > +unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && > +unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME && > +unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL && > +test_must_fail git config user.email && > +echo changed >1.t && > + git stash > +) > +' > + > test_done
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:31 PM Slavica wrote: > This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if > `user.name` is not configured. > The issue is discussed here: > https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u. As Christian mentioned already, it's best to try to describe the issue succinctly in the commit message so readers can understand it without chasing a link. For this simple case, it should be sufficient to explain that, due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably requires 'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't. > Signed-off-by: Slavica > --- > diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh > @@ -1156,4 +1156,21 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- works with > binary files' ' > +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' ' The purpose of this test is to demonstrate that git-stash has an undesirable requirement that 'user.name' and 'user.email' be set. The test title should reflect that. So, instead of talking about non-existent HOME (which is just an implementation detail of the test), a better test title would be something like "stash works when user.name and user.email are not set". > +test_commit 1 && > +test_config user.useconfigonly true && > +test_config stash.usebuiltin true && > +( > +HOME=$(pwd)/none && > +export HOME && > +unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME && Use sane_unset() for all of these rather than bare 'unset'. > +unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && > +unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME && > +unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL && > +test_must_fail git config user.email && > +echo changed >1.t && > + git stash Christian already mentioned the odd indentation. > +) > +'
Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:35 PM Slavica wrote: > > This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if > `user.name` is not configured. > The issue is discussed here: > https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u. We prefer commit messages that contain as much as possible all the information necessary to understand the patch without links to other places. It seems that only this email from you reached me. Did you send other emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3? [...] > +( > +HOME=$(pwd)/none && > +export HOME && > +unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME && > +unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && > +unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME && > +unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL && > +test_must_fail git config user.email && > +echo changed >1.t && > + git stash It seems that the above line is not indented like the previous ones. > +) > +' Thanks for contributing, Christian.
[PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name
This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured. The issue is discussed here: https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u. Signed-off-by: Slavica --- t/t3903-stash.sh | 17 + 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh index 9e06494ba0..9ff34a65bc 100755 --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh @@ -1156,4 +1156,21 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- works with binary files' ' test_path_is_file subdir/untracked ' +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' ' +test_commit 1 && +test_config user.useconfigonly true && +test_config stash.usebuiltin true && +( +HOME=$(pwd)/none && +export HOME && +unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME && +unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && +unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME && +unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL && +test_must_fail git config user.email && +echo changed >1.t && + git stash +) +' + test_done -- 2.19.1.windows.1
