Re: [PATCH 09/12] t4150: am with post-applypatch hook

Hi Paul,

On 2015-07-07 08:47, Paul Tan wrote:

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2015-07-02 20:16, Paul Tan wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/t/t4150-am.sh b/t/t4150-am.sh
index dd6fe81..62b678c 100755
--- a/t/t4150-am.sh
+++ b/t/t4150-am.sh

@@ -275,6 +275,48 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook' '
      test_cmp_rev first HEAD
 '

+test_expect_success 'am with post-applypatch hook' '
+     test_when_finished "rm -f .git/hooks/post-applypatch" &&
+     rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
+     git reset --hard &&
+     git checkout first &&
+     mkdir -p .git/hooks &&
+     cat >.git/hooks/post-applypatch <<-\EOF &&
+     #!/bin/sh
+     git rev-parse HEAD >head.actual
+     git diff second >diff.actual
+     exit 0
+     EOF
+     chmod +x .git/hooks/post-applypatch &&
+     git am patch1 &&
+     test_path_is_missing .git/rebase-apply &&
+     test_cmp_rev second HEAD &&
+     git rev-parse second >head.expected &&
+     test_cmp head.expected head.actual &&
+     git diff second >diff.expected &&
+     test_cmp diff.expected diff.actual
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'am with failing post-applypatch hook' '
+     test_when_finished "rm -f .git/hooks/post-applypatch" &&
+     rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
+     git reset --hard &&
+     git checkout first &&
+     mkdir -p .git/hooks &&
+     cat >.git/hooks/post-applypatch <<-\EOF &&
+     #!/bin/sh
+     git rev-parse HEAD >head.actual
+     exit 1
+     EOF
+     chmod +x .git/hooks/post-applypatch &&
+     git am patch1 &&
+     test_path_is_missing .git/rebase-apply &&
+     git diff --exit-code second &&
+     test_cmp_rev second HEAD &&
+     git rev-parse second >head.expected &&
+     test_cmp head.expected head.actual
+'

These 2 tests as well as the previous patches look to me as if they could be refactored (the paradigm is the same: add a certain hook after resetting and then apply the patch, verify that the hook ran/failed)... do you think there is a chance for that?

I had a look, but I think that while it is true that the overall
sequence of each test is the same, the details differ enough that
there's no obvious way to refactor the tests sensibly. For example,
the contents of the hook scripts are not the same, as we need to check
that the hooks are run at the correct stage of git-am execution. And
as such, the verification tests are also different as well.

Yeah, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

Ciao,
Dscho