Re: [PATCH v4 7/9] t3437: test script for fixup [-C|-c] options in interactive rebase

Hi,

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 15:32, Christian Couder
[off-list ref] wrote:
[...]

quoted

The function comment above this code may also need to be updated to
reflect this change.

Yeah, good suggestion.

Okay, I will add that .

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/t/t3437-rebase-fixup-options.sh b/t/t3437-rebase-fixup-options.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+#
+# Copyright (c) 2018 Phillip Wood

Did Phillip write this script? Is this patch based upon an old patch from him?

Yeah, it might be a good idea to add a "Based-on-patch-by: Phillip ..."

Oops, I forgot to add the trailer in this patch and will add it.

quoted

quoted

+test_commit_message () {
+       rev="$1" && # commit or tag we want to test
+       file="$2" && # test against the content of a file
+       git show --no-patch --pretty=format:%B "$rev" >actual-message &&
+       if test "$2" = -m
+       then
+               str="$3" && # test against a string
+               printf "%s\n" "$str" >tmp-expected-message &&
+               file="tmp-expected-message"
+       fi
+       test_cmp "$file" actual-message
+}

By embedding comments in the function itself explaining $1, $2, and
$3, anyone who adds tests to this script in the future is forced to
read the function implementation to understand how to call it. Adding
function documentation can remove that burden. For instance:

    # test_commit_message <rev> -m <msg>
    # test_commit_message <rev> <path>
    #    Verify that the commit message of <rev> matches
    #    <msg> or the content of <path>.
    test_commit_message ()  {
        ...
    }

Good suggestion.

Agree, I will add the comments.

quoted

The implementation of test_commit_message() is a bit hard to follow.
It might be simpler to write it more concisely and directly like this:

    git show --no-patch --pretty=format:%B "$1" >actual &&
    case "$2" in
    -m) echo "$3" >expect && test_cmp expect actual ;;

I think we try to avoid many commands on the same line.

quoted

    *) test_cmp "$2" actual ;;
    esac

In general I am not sure that using $1, $2, $3 directly makes things
easier to understand, but yeah, with the function documentation that
you suggest, it might be better to write the function using them
directly.

Okay, I will update it.

[...]

quoted

quoted

+test_expect_success 'fixup -C removes amend! from message' '
+       test_when_finished "test_might_fail git rebase --abort" &&
+       git checkout --detach A1 &&
+       FAKE_LINES="1 fixup_-C 2" git rebase -i A &&
+       test_cmp_rev HEAD^ A &&
+       test_cmp_rev HEAD^{tree} A1^{tree} &&
+       test_commit_message HEAD expected-message &&
+       get_author HEAD >actual-author &&
+       test_cmp expected-author actual-author
+'

This test seems out of place. I would expect to see it added in the
patch which adds "amend!" functionality.

Alternatively, if the intention really is to support "amend!" this
early in the series in [6/9], then the commit message of [6/9] should
talk about it.

Yeah, I think it might be better to just remove everything related to
"amend!" in this series and put it into the next one.

Agree. Eric pointed at other patches also for amend! commit.
So I also admit that to avoid confusion, I will remove all these amend! part and
will add to other patch series.

[...]

quoted

quoted

+       git checkout --detach A1 &&
+       test_must_fail env FAKE_LINES="1 fixup_-C 2" git rebase -i conflicts &&
+       git checkout --theirs -- A &&
+       git add A &&
+       FAKE_COMMIT_AMEND=edited git rebase --continue &&
+       test_cmp_rev HEAD^ conflicts &&
+       test_cmp_rev HEAD^{tree} A1^{tree} &&
+       test_write_lines "" edited >>expected-message &&

It feels clunky and fragile for this test to be changing
"expected-message" which was created in the "setup" test and used
unaltered up to this point. If the content of "expected-message" is
really going to change from test to test (as I see it changes again in
a later test), then it would be easier to reason about the behavior if
each test gives "expected-message" the precise content it should have
in that local context. As it is currently implemented, it's too
difficult to follow along and remember the value of "expected-message"
from test to test. It also makes it difficult to extend tests or add
new tests in between existing tests without negatively impacting other
tests. If each test sets up "expected-message" to the precise content
needed by the test, then both those problems go away.

I agree with it ...

Yeah, perhaps the global "expected-message" could be renamed for
example "global-expected-message", and tests which need a specific one
could prepare and use a custom "expected-message" (maybe named
"custom-expected-message") without ever changing
"global-expected-message".

... Okay, I will change it.

Thanks Eric and Christian for the suggestions and reviews. I will
include all the changes
in the next revision.

Thanks and Regards,
Charvi