Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH v6 09/10] submodule: support reading .gitmodules when it's not in the working tree

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:19:00 -0700
Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > +test_expect_success 'not writing gitmodules config file when it is not checked out' '
> > +        test_must_fail git -C super submodule--helper config submodule.submodule.url newurl
> This only checks the exit code, do we also want to check for
>     test_path_is_missing .gitmodules ?

OK, I agree, let's re-check also *after* we tried and failed to set
a config value, just to be sure that the code does not get accidentally
changed in the future to create the file. I'll add the check.

> > +test_expect_success 'initialising submodule when the gitmodules config is not checked out' '
> > +       git -C super submodule init
> > +'
> > +
> > +test_expect_success 'showing submodule summary when the gitmodules config is not checked out' '
> > +       git -C super submodule summary
> > +'
> Same for these, is the exit code enough, or do we want to look at
> specific things?

Except for the "summary" test which was not even exercising the
config_from_gitmodule path,  checking exist status should be sufficient
to verify that "submodule--helper config" does not fail, but we can
surely do better.

I will add checks to confirm that not only the commands exited without
errors but they also achieved the desired effect, to validate the actual
high-level use case advertised by the test file. This should be more

And I think I'll merge the summary and the update tests.

> > +
> > +test_expect_success 'updating submodule when the gitmodules config is not checked out' '
> > +       (cd submodule &&
> > +               echo file2 >file2 &&
> > +               git add file2 &&
> > +               git commit -m "add file2 to submodule"
> > +       ) &&
> > +       git -C super submodule update
> git status would want to be clean afterwards?

Mmh, this should have been "submodule update --remote" in the first
place to have any effect, I'll take the chance and rewrite this test in
a different way and also check the effect of the update operation, and
the repository status.

I'll be something like this:

ORIG_SUBMODULE=$(git -C submodule rev-parse HEAD)
ORIG_UPSTREAM=$(git -C upstream rev-parse HEAD)
ORIG_SUPER=$(git -C super rev-parse HEAD)

test_expect_success 're-updating submodule when the gitmodules config is not checked out' '
	test_when_finished "git -C submodule reset --hard $ORIG_SUBMODULE;
	                    git -C upstream reset --hard $ORIG_UPSTREAM;
	                    git -C super reset --hard $ORIG_SUPER;
	                    git -C upstream submodule update --remote;
	                    git -C super pull;
	                    git -C super submodule update --remote" &&
	(cd submodule &&
		echo file2 >file2 &&
		git add file2 &&
		test_tick &&
		git commit -m "add file2 to submodule"
	) &&
	(cd upstream &&
		git submodule update --remote &&
		git add submodule &&
		test_tick &&
		git commit -m "Update submodule"
	) &&
	git -C super pull &&
	# The --for-status options reads the gitmdoules config
	git -C super submodule summary --for-status >actual &&
	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
	* submodule 951c301...a939200 (1):
	  < add file2 to submodule
	test_cmp expect actual &&
	# Test that the update actually succeeds
	test_path_is_missing super/submodule/file2 &&
	git -C super submodule update &&
	test_cmp submodule/file2 super/submodule/file2 &&
	git -C super status --short >output &&
	test_must_be_empty output

Maybe a little overkill?

The "upstream" repo will be added in test 1 to better clarify the roles
of the involved repositories.

The commit ids should be stable because of test_tick, shouldn't they?

Thanks for the comments, they helped improving the quality of the tests
once again.

I'll wait a few days before sending a v7, hopefully someone will find
time to take another look at patch 9 and comment also on patch 10, and
give an opinion on the "mergeability" status of the whole patchset.

Ciao ciao,

Antonio Ospite

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?