Re: [PATCH 08/22] sequencer: remove overzealous assumption

Hello Johannes,

W dniu 01.09.2016 o 10:01, Johannes Schindelin pisze:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote:

quoted

W dniu 31.08.2016 o 20:36, Johannes Schindelin pisze:

I wonder: would 'git cherry-pick --continue' be able to finish
'git revert', and vice versa, then?  Or 'git sequencer --continue'?

I just tested this, via

	diff --git a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
	b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
	index 96c7640..085d8bc 100755
	--- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
	+++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
	@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ test_expect_success 'cherry-pick
	mid-cherry-pick-sequence' '
		git checkout HEAD foo &&
		git cherry-pick base &&
		git cherry-pick picked &&
	-       git cherry-pick --continue &&
	+       git revert --continue &&
		git diff --exit-code anotherpick

(Danger! Whitespace corrupted!!!)

It appears that this passes now.

I'm now not sure if it is such a great idea.  As was said somewhere else
in this thread, different sequencer-based commands sports different
options, and you can add options to the "git <command> --continue".
For example you can say "git cherry-pick --continue -x", but you
cannot say "git revert --continue -x", as '-x' is a cherry-pick only
option.  Or you can, theoretically, use "git am --continue --no-3way".

One option is to temporarily relax the test (test_expect_failure),
then fix it at the end.


BTW. how git-am uses sequencer?  I have seen "revert" etc., and "pick"
etc., but no git-am related constants or strings...

Probably `git sequencer --continue` would work, too, if there was a `git
sequencer`. :0)

Right.

quoted

quoted

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote: 

quoted

W dniu 29.08.2016 o 10:04, Johannes Schindelin pisze:

quoted

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
index 7b7a89d..6465edf 100755
--- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
+++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh

@@ -459,17 +459,6 @@ test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 1' '
 	test_expect_code 128 git cherry-pick --continue
 '
 
-test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 2' '

Hmmm... the description is somewhat lacking (especially compared to
the rest of test), anyway.

BTW. we should probably rename 'malformed instruction sheet 2'
to 'malformed instruction sheet' if there are no further such
tests after this removal, isn't it?

No, we cannot rename it after this patch because the patch removes it ;-)
(It is not a file name but really a label for a test case.)

Ooops.  What I wanted to say that after removing the test case named
'malformed instruction sheet 2' we should also rename *earlier* test
case from 'malformed instruction sheet 1' to 'malformed instruction sheet',
as it is now the only 'malformed instruction sheet *' test case.

Actually, you know, I completely missed the fact that there was a
"malformed instruction sheet 3". I renumbered it.

Ooops.  I have missed it too, having looked only at the test after the
one removed (which is not about malformed instruction sheet).

Best,
-- 
Jakub Narębski