Re: [PATCH] Add new @ shortcut for HEAD

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

Don't we have different refs that resolve to something other than
$HASH4 at this point in the test?  Otherwise we wouldn't notice a
breakage because we cannot tell if HEAD@ and master@ are interpreted
correctly or all of these happen to yield $HASH4 because a version
somebody else patches to break the implementation in this patch
discards any string before @ that is not followed by {stuff}.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

diff --git a/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh b/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh
index 813cc1b..426c63f 100755
--- a/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh
+++ b/t/t1503-rev-parse-verify.sh

@@ -115,4 +115,13 @@ test_expect_success 'master@{n} for various n' '
      test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify master@{$Np1}
 '

+test_expect_success 'empty @' '
+     rev_hash=$(git rev-parse --verify @) &&
+     test "$rev_hash" = "$HASH4" &&
+     rev_hash=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD@) &&
+     test "$rev_hash" = "$HASH4" &&
+     rev_hash=$(git rev-parse --verify master@) &&
+     test "$rev_hash" = "$HASH4"
+'

Don't we have different refs that resolve to something other than
$HASH4 at this point in the test?

No.

Otherwise we wouldn't notice a
breakage because we cannot tell if HEAD@ and master@ are interpreted
correctly or all of these happen to yield $HASH4 because a version
somebody else patches to break the implementation in this patch
discards any string before @ that is not followed by {stuff}.

        rev_hash=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD@) &&
        test "$rev_hash" = "$HASH4" &&
        rev_hash=$(git rev-parse --verify master@) &&
-       test "$rev_hash" = "$HASH4"
+       test "$rev_hash" = "$HASH4" &&
+       test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify foo@

-- 
Felipe Contreras