kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Junio C Hamano	41ac414ea2	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
Johannes Schindelin	3f735b6654	rebase: fix "rebase --continue" breakage The --skip case was handled properly when rebasing without --merge, but the --continue case was not. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Mike Hommey	fb6e4e1f3f	Do git reset --hard HEAD when using git rebase --skip When you have a merge conflict and want to bypass the commit causing it, you don't want to care about the dirty state of the working tree. Also, don't git reset --hard HEAD in the rebase-skip test, so that the lack of support for this is detected. Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Junio C Hamano	5be60078c9	Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	a6080a0a44	War on whitespace This uses "git-apply --whitespace=strip" to fix whitespace errors that have crept in to our source files over time. There are a few files that need to have trailing whitespaces (most notably, test vectors). The results still passes the test, and build result in Documentation/ area is unchanged. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	36889a5078	tests: merge-recursive is usable without Python Many tests still protected themselves with $no_python; there is no need to do so anymore. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	4be609625e	apply --unidiff-zero: loosen sanity checks for --unidiff=0 patches In "git-apply", we have a few sanity checks and heuristics that expects that the patch fed to us is a unified diff with at least one line of context. * When there is no leading context line in a hunk, the hunk must apply at the beginning of the preimage. Similarly, no trailing context means that the hunk is anchored at the end. * We learn a patch deletes the file from a hunk that has no resulting line (i.e. all lines are prefixed with '-') if it has not otherwise been known if the patch deletes the file. Similarly, no old line means the file is being created. And we declare an error condition when the file created by a creation patch already exists, and/or when a deletion patch still leaves content in the file. These sanity checks are good safety measures, but breaks down when people feed a diff generated with --unified=0. This was recently noticed first by Matthew Wilcox and Gerrit Pape. This adds a new flag, --unified-zero, to allow bypassing these checks. If you are in control of the patch generation process, you should not use --unified=0 patch and fix it up with this flag; rather you should try work with a patch with context. But if all you have to work with is a patch without context, this flag may come handy as the last resort. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Eric Wong	d5e673b60b	rebase: allow --skip to work with --merge Now that we control the merge base selection, we won't be forced into rolling things in that we wanted to skip beforehand. Also, add a test to ensure this all works as intended. Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	19 years ago