From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Cc: Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:43:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130331214318.GA24646@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0=a0wmUe-rjK8Gg8izc0FdXYzChSrgp+W-JNsECsDf+yA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:21:22AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Jeff King wrote:
> > [...]
>
> So, you're saying: don't test compound statements for failure, since
> anything in the chain could fail and propagate failure. I should only
> test simple git-foo commands for failure?
Right.
> > Sometimes it's annoyingly verbose to break down a compound function. But
> > I think in this case, you can make your tests more robust by just
> > checking the affirmative that the ref is still where we expect it to be,
> > like:
> >
> > check_push_result up_repo $the_first_commit heads/master
>
> Doesn't that change the meaning of the test though? I really like how
> the original tests read.
Does it? I thought the original was:
test_must_fail check_push_result up_repo $the_commit heads/master
which is checking that we did _not_ push $the_commit to up_repo.
Checking that without a negative means confirming that what _used_ to be
there is still there, which is $the_first_commit.
But I didn't actually run it, so I might be wrong about what is supposed
to be there after the (lack of) push.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-31 21:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-28 13:26 [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-28 13:26 ` [PATCH 1/6] remote.c: simplify a bit of code using git_config_string() Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-28 13:26 ` [PATCH 2/6] t5516 (fetch-push): update test description Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-28 13:26 ` [PATCH 3/6] t5516 (fetch-push): drop implicit arguments from helper functions Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-28 13:26 ` [PATCH 4/6] remote.c: introduce a way to have different remotes for fetch/push Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-28 13:26 ` [PATCH 5/6] remote.c: introduce remote.pushdefault Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-28 13:26 ` [PATCH 6/6] remote.c: introduce branch.<name>.pushremote Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-28 15:02 ` [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows Junio C Hamano
2013-03-28 15:35 ` Jeff King
2013-03-28 16:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-31 20:54 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-01 1:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-01 3:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-01 5:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-01 5:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-31 20:51 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-31 21:43 ` Jeff King [this message]
2013-04-01 1:50 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130331214318.GA24646@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=artagnon@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).