Re: Git Test Coverage Report (Friday, Nov 2)
- Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 19:03:09 +0900
- From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Git Test Coverage Report (Friday, Nov 2)
Michał Górny <mgorny@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> As for how involved... we'd just have to use a key that has split
> signing subkey. Would it be fine to add the subkey to the existing key?
> It would imply updating keyids/fingerprints everywhere.
Yes, that "everywhere" is exactly what I meant by "how involved",
and your suggestion answers "very much involved".
If we can easily add _another_ key with a subkey that is not the
primary one we use for other tests, without touching the existing
key and the existing tests that use it (including the one I touched
below--- we'd want to see a sig with a key that is not split is
shown with the same %GF and %GP), while adding a handful of new
tests that create signed objects under the new & split key and
view them with %GF and %GP, then the end result would be that we
managed to add a new test case where %GF/%GP are different without
making very much involved changes. I guess that was what I was
>> t/t7510-signed-commit.sh | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh
>> index 19ccae2869..9ecafedcc4 100755
>> --- a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh
>> +++ b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh
>> @@ -176,8 +176,9 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'show good signature with custom format' '
>> C O Mitter <committer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> + 73D758744BE721698EC54E8713B6F51ECDDE430D
>> - git log -1 --format="%G?%n%GK%n%GS%n%GF" sixth-signed >actual &&
>> + git log -1 --format="%G?%n%GK%n%GS%n%GF%n%GP" sixth-signed >actual &&
>> test_cmp expect actual