Re: [PATCH 1/2] t4151: document a pair of am --abort bugs

Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 12:02 AM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

"Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

+test_expect_failure 'git am --abort returns us to a clean state' '
+     git checkout changes &&
+     git format-patch -1 --stdout conflicting >changes.mbox &&
+     test_must_fail git am --3way changes.mbox &&
+
+     # Make a change related to the rest of the am work
+     echo related change >>file-2 &&
+
+     # Abort, and expect the related change to go away too
+     git am --abort &&
+     git status --porcelain -uno >actual &&
+     test_must_be_empty actual

This test makes me worried.  It is perfectly normal for "am" to be
asked to work in a dirty working tree as long as the index is clean
and the working tree files that are involved in the patch are
unmodified.

Ah, I think I am just too used to rebase where it refuses to start if
the working tree isn't clean, assumed the same with am (which I don't
use that much), and then projected from there.

I'll drop the second test; thanks for the explanation.

Actually, if you test that unrelated dirty files are kept, then the
test is a welcome addition.  "returns us to a 'clean' state" needs a
bit different title, though.

Thanks.