kernel
/
git
mirror of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
14117 Commits
6 Branches
36 Tags
131 MiB
Tree: bbd4c307fc
Branches Tags
${ item.name }
Create tag ${ searchTerm }
Create branch ${ searchTerm }
from 'bbd4c307fc'
${ noResults }
git/t/t5600-clone-fail-cleanup.sh

43 lines
1.1 KiB
Raw Normal View History Unescape

New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
19 years ago
#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (C) 2006 Carl D. Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
#
test_description='test git-clone to cleanup after failure
This test covers the fact that if git-clone fails, it should remove
the directory it created, to avoid the user having to manually
remove the directory before attempting a clone again.'
. ./test-lib.sh
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
17 years ago
test_expect_success \
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
19 years ago
'clone of non-existent source should fail' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
17 years ago
'! git-clone foo bar'
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
19 years ago
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
17 years ago
test_expect_success \
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
19 years ago
'failed clone should not leave a directory' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
17 years ago
'! test -d bar'
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
19 years ago
# Need a repo to clone
test_create_repo foo
# clone doesn't like it if there is no HEAD. Is that a bug?
(cd foo && touch file && git add file && git commit -m 'add file' >/dev/null 2>&1)
clone: the given repository dir should be relative to $PWD the repository argument for git-clone should be relative to $PWD instead of the given target directory. The old behavior gave us surprising success and you need a few minute to know why it worked. GIT_DIR is already exported so no need to cd into $D. And this makes $PWD for git-fetch-pack, which is the actual command to take the given repository dir, the same as git-clone. Signed-off-by: Yasushi SHOJI <yashi@atmark-techno.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
18 years ago
# source repository given to git-clone should be relative to the
# current path not to the target dir
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
17 years ago
test_expect_success \
clone: the given repository dir should be relative to $PWD the repository argument for git-clone should be relative to $PWD instead of the given target directory. The old behavior gave us surprising success and you need a few minute to know why it worked. GIT_DIR is already exported so no need to cd into $D. And this makes $PWD for git-fetch-pack, which is the actual command to take the given repository dir, the same as git-clone. Signed-off-by: Yasushi SHOJI <yashi@atmark-techno.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
18 years ago
'clone of non-existent (relative to $PWD) source should fail' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
17 years ago
'! git-clone ../foo baz'
clone: the given repository dir should be relative to $PWD the repository argument for git-clone should be relative to $PWD instead of the given target directory. The old behavior gave us surprising success and you need a few minute to know why it worked. GIT_DIR is already exported so no need to cd into $D. And this makes $PWD for git-fetch-pack, which is the actual command to take the given repository dir, the same as git-clone. Signed-off-by: Yasushi SHOJI <yashi@atmark-techno.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
18 years ago
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
19 years ago
test_expect_success \
'clone should work now that source exists' \
'git-clone foo bar'
test_expect_success \
Assorted typo fixes Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
18 years ago
'successful clone must leave the directory' \
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
19 years ago
'cd bar'
test_done