Re: [PATCH v5 24/24] t1406: new tests for submodule ref store

On 03/01/2017 01:34 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 02/22/2017 03:04 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <redacted>
---
 t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh (new +x) | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+)
 create mode 100755 t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh

diff --git a/t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh b/t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh
new file mode 100755
index 000000000..3b30ba62f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh

[...]

I haven't actually read this far in the patch series, but I noticed that
a test in this file fails:


t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh                     (Wstat: 256 Tests: 15
Failed: 1)
  Failed test:  10
  Non-zero exit status: 1

I didn't have time to look into it more; let me know if you can't
reproduce it.

Fantastic. No I couldn't reproduce it, even --valgrind did not
complain. First step maybe just pushing your branch somewhere so I can
try out if you're applying the patches via mail (maybe there's some
changes in the base that affect this). .Otherwise /t1406-* -v -i might
be enough clue for me to dig in, I hope.

I'm testing c5302654930070135eec9bc1b4ef99b14e0f28ee from Junio's GitHub
fork.

Unfortunately, the test succeeds (every time) when I run just `t1406-*`
or with `-d` or `-i` options, but fails (every time) when run as part of
the whole test suite, so it's a bit tricky to dig deeper.

By trial and error, I found that the test succeeds if I comment out the
"for_each_reflog()" test. By having that test write its results to
`/tmp` where they won't be deleted, I found that the problem is that the
`actual` results are not sorted correctly:

    refs/heads/new-master 0x0
    refs/heads/master 0x0
    HEAD 0x1

I don't know why it's so Heisenbergish.

Michael