Re: [PATCH] t1309: use a non-loaded branch name in the `onbranch` test cases

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Nov 19 2020, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Hi Ævar,
>
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 18 2020, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>
>> > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
>> >
>> > The `onbranch` test cases in question do not actually want to include
>> > anything; Instead, they want to verify that the `onbranch` code path
>> > does not regress in the early-config case or in the non-Git case, where
>> > the `onbranch` include is actually ignored.
>>
>> It's unclear to me what this patch is for & why it's needed.
>
> Well, the entire idea of switching to a new default branch name is to
> avoid using words that we know cause undue emotional harm. In the grand
> scheme, therefore, I want to avoid having any mention of such words in our
> test suite.

I meant why there were two conflicting patches on-list that changed the
same hunks in different ways, both of which resulted in passing tests
and seemingly fulfilled the goal you're noting here.

Later you sent a v3 of the main series, which clarified this question:
https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.762.v3.git.1605743086.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/

>> Yesterday in your v2 27/27 series you sent a different one that changed
>> this from s/master/main/g:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/b8fa037791683b50c3efb01aa6ac0d3f7b888a2b.1605629548.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
>>
>> That's on top of "next", but this one is on "master", the two would
>> conflict, and the 02/27 one seems like the right thing to do.
>
> Yeah, I hadn't made it clear yet at the time you wrote this that my
> intention was to give in to your and Junio's suggestion to restrict the
> `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME` assignments to _just_ the test
> scripts that don't work with arbitrary default branch names.
>
> I had hoped that mentioning gitgitgadget PR 762 (which is that 27-strong
> patch series) would be indicator enough that I was in the process of
> revamping it into a v3, and that this here patch is one part that I
> separated out into its own patch.
>
>> > Therefore, the actual branch name does not matter at all. We might just
>> > as well avoid racially-charged names here.
>>
>> It seems to me the actual name matters a lot, and it must whatever the
>> default branch name is.
>
> Nope. Not at all. Because what we're exercising is the code paths when we
> _don't_ have a branch name to work with.
>
> In the non-Git case, this is trivial to see. There is not even a
> repository! How can there be a branch?
>
> In the early config case, it is too early to access the refs. I meant to
> reference (but forgot) the commit 85fe0e800ca (config: work around bug
> with includeif:onbranch and early config, 2019-07-31) because that
> commit's commit message describes the catch-22 that is the reason why the
> early config cannot see the current branch name (if any).
>
> I should probably have thought of referencing 22932d9169f (config: stop
> checking whether the_repository is NULL, 2019-08-06) for the second test
> case, too.
>
> So again, these two test cases do _not_ exercise the code path where
> another config file is included. To the contrary, they try to prevent a
> regression where `onbranch` would segfault in one case, and BUG in the
> other (in both cases because the now-fixed code used to try to look at the
> current branch name _anyway_).
>
>> I.e. what the test is doing is producing intentionally broken config,
>> and asserting that we don't read it at an early stage.
>>
>> Therefore if we regressed and started doing that the test wouldn't catch
>> it, because the default branch name is "master", or "main" if/when that
>> refs.c change lands, neither of which is "topic".
>
> No, if we regressed, the code would start to throw a BUG, or a segfault,
> respectively.
>
> We never expect these two test cases to look at any branch name at all.


Thanks. I mis(understood|read) it.