Re: [PATCH 2/4] t6030: explicitly test for bisection cleanup
From: Eric Sunshine <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-16 02:19:48
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Pranit Bauva [off-list ref] wrote:
This is not an improvement in the test coverage but it helps in making it explicit as to what exactly would be the error as other tests are focussed on testing other things.
It's not clear why you consider this as *not* improving test coverage.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <redacted> ---diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh@@ -894,4 +894,21 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start takes options and revs in any order' ' +test_expect_success 'git bisect reset cleans bisection state properly' ' + git bisect reset && + git bisect start && + git bisect good $HASH1 && + git bisect bad $HASH4 && + git bisect reset && + test -z "$(git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*")" &&
I wonder if this would be more easily read as:
git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*" >actual &&
test_must_be_empty actual &&
+ ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_EXPECTED_REV" && + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK" && + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG" && + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN" && + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS" && + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" && + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_HEAD" && + ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START"
Is it the intention that these should verify that the files don't exist? Maybe use test_path_is_missing() instead?
+' + test_done