git/t/t1000-read-tree-m-3way.sh

532 lines
17 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2005 Junio C Hamano
#
test_description='Three way merge with read-tree -m
This test tries three-way merge with read-tree -m
There is one ancestor (called O for Original) and two branches A
and B derived from it. We want to do a 3-way merge between A and
B, using O as the common ancestor.
merge A O B
Decisions are made by comparing contents of O, A and B pathname
by pathname. The result is determined by the following guiding
principle:
- If only A does something to it and B does not touch it, take
whatever A does.
- If only B does something to it and A does not touch it, take
whatever B does.
- If both A and B does something but in the same way, take
whatever they do.
- If A and B does something but different things, we need a
3-way merge:
- We cannot do anything about the following cases:
* O does not have it. A and B both must be adding to the
same path independently.
* A deletes it. B must be modifying.
- Otherwise, A and B are modifying. Run 3-way merge.
First, the case matrix.
- Vertical axis is for A'\''s actions.
- Horizontal axis is for B'\''s actions.
.----------------------------------------------------------------.
| A B | No Action | Delete | Modify | Add |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
| No Action | | | | |
| | select O | delete | select B | select B |
| | | | | |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
| Delete | | | ********** | can |
| | delete | delete | merge | not |
| | | | | happen |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
| Modify | | ********** | ?????????? | can |
| | select A | merge | select A=B | not |
| | | | merge | happen |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
| Add | | can | can | ?????????? |
| | select A | not | not | select A=B |
| | | happen | happen | merge |
.----------------------------------------------------------------.
In addition:
SS: a special case of MM, where A and B makes the same modification.
LL: a special case of AA, where A and B creates the same file.
TT: a special case of MM, where A and B makes mergeable changes.
DF: a special case, where A makes a directory and B makes a file.
'
. ./test-lib.sh
. ../lib-read-tree-m-3way.sh
################################################################
# Trivial "majority when 3 stages exist" merge plus #2ALT, #3ALT
# and #5ALT trivial merges.
cat >expected <<\EOF
100644 X 2 AA
100644 X 3 AA
100644 X 0 AN
100644 X 1 DD
100644 X 3 DF
100644 X 2 DF/DF
100644 X 1 DM
100644 X 3 DM
100644 X 1 DN
100644 X 3 DN
[PATCH] read-tree: fix too strong index requirement #5ALT This fixes too strong index requirement 3-way merge enforces in one case: the same file is added in both branches. In this case, the original code insisted that if the index file has that path, it must match our branch and be up-to-date. However in this particular case, it only has to match it, and can be dirty. We just need to make sure that we keep the work-tree copy instead of checking out the merge result. The resolution of such a path, however, cannot be left to outside script, because we will not keep the original stage0 entries for unmerged paths when read-tree finishes, and at that point, the knowledge of "if we resolve it to match the new file added in both branches, the merge succeeds and the work tree would not lose information, but we should _not_ update the work tree from the resulting index file" is lost. For this reason, the now code needs to resolve this case (#5ALT) internally. This affects some existing tests in the test suite, but all in positive ways. In t1000 (3-way test), this #5ALT case now gets one stage0 entry, instead of an identical stage2 and stage3 entry pair, for such a path, and one test that checked for merge failure (because the test assumed the "stricter-than-necessary" behaviour) does not have to fail anymore. In t1005 (emu23 test), two tests that involves a case where the work tree already had a change introduced in the upstream (aka "merged head"), the merge succeeds instead of failing. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-11 01:37:47 +00:00
100644 X 0 LL
100644 X 1 MD
100644 X 2 MD
100644 X 1 MM
100644 X 2 MM
100644 X 3 MM
100644 X 0 MN
100644 X 0 NA
100644 X 1 ND
100644 X 2 ND
100644 X 0 NM
100644 X 0 NN
100644 X 0 SS
100644 X 1 TT
100644 X 2 TT
100644 X 3 TT
100644 X 2 Z/AA
100644 X 3 Z/AA
100644 X 0 Z/AN
100644 X 1 Z/DD
100644 X 1 Z/DM
100644 X 3 Z/DM
100644 X 1 Z/DN
100644 X 3 Z/DN
100644 X 1 Z/MD
100644 X 2 Z/MD
100644 X 1 Z/MM
100644 X 2 Z/MM
100644 X 3 Z/MM
100644 X 0 Z/MN
100644 X 0 Z/NA
100644 X 1 Z/ND
100644 X 2 Z/ND
100644 X 0 Z/NM
100644 X 0 Z/NN
EOF
_x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]'
_x40="$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40"
check_result () {
git ls-files --stage | sed -e 's/ '"$_x40"' / X /' >current &&
test_cmp expected current
}
# This is done on an empty work directory, which is the normal
# merge person behaviour.
test_expect_success \
'3-way merge with git read-tree -m, empty cache' \
"rm -fr [NDMALTS][NDMALTSF] Z &&
rm .git/index &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
# This starts out with the first head, which is the normal
# patch submitter behaviour.
test_expect_success \
'3-way merge with git read-tree -m, match H' \
"rm -fr [NDMALTS][NDMALTSF] Z &&
rm .git/index &&
git read-tree $tree_A &&
git checkout-index -f -u -a &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
: <<\END_OF_CASE_TABLE
We have so far tested only empty index and clean-and-matching-A index
case which are trivial. Make sure index requirements are also
checked.
"git read-tree -m O A B"
O A B result index requirements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1 missing missing missing - must not exist.
------------------------------------------------------------------
2 missing missing exists take B* must match B, if exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
3 missing exists missing take A* must match A, if exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
4 missing exists A!=B no merge must match A and be
up-to-date, if exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
5 missing exists A==B take A must match A, if exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
6 exists missing missing remove must not exist.
------------------------------------------------------------------
7 exists missing O!=B no merge must not exist.
------------------------------------------------------------------
8 exists missing O==B remove must not exist.
------------------------------------------------------------------
9 exists O!=A missing no merge must match A and be
up-to-date, if exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
10 exists O==A missing no merge must match A
------------------------------------------------------------------
11 exists O!=A O!=B no merge must match A and be
A!=B up-to-date, if exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
12 exists O!=A O!=B take A must match A, if exists.
A==B
------------------------------------------------------------------
13 exists O!=A O==B take A must match A, if exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
14 exists O==A O!=B take B if exists, must either (1)
match A and be up-to-date,
or (2) match B.
------------------------------------------------------------------
15 exists O==A O==B take B must match A if exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
16 exists O==A O==B barf must match A if exists.
*multi* in one in another
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: we need to be careful in case 2 and 3. The tree A may contain
DF (file) when tree B require DF to be a directory by having DF/DF
(file).
END_OF_CASE_TABLE
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success '1 - must not have an entry not in A.' "
rm -f .git/index XX &&
echo XX >XX &&
git update-index --add XX &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
test_expect_success \
'2 - must match B in !O && !A && B case.' \
"rm -f .git/index NA &&
cp .orig-B/NA NA &&
git update-index --add NA &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B"
test_expect_success \
'2 - matching B alone is OK in !O && !A && B case.' \
"rm -f .git/index NA &&
cp .orig-B/NA NA &&
git update-index --add NA &&
echo extra >>NA &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B"
test_expect_success \
'3 - must match A in !O && A && !B case.' \
"rm -f .git/index AN &&
cp .orig-A/AN AN &&
git update-index --add AN &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
test_expect_success \
'3 - matching A alone is OK in !O && A && !B case.' \
"rm -f .git/index AN &&
cp .orig-A/AN AN &&
git update-index --add AN &&
echo extra >>AN &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'3 (fail) - must match A in !O && A && !B case.' "
rm -f .git/index AN &&
cp .orig-A/AN AN &&
echo extra >>AN &&
git update-index --add AN &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
test_expect_success \
'4 - must match and be up-to-date in !O && A && B && A!=B case.' \
"rm -f .git/index AA &&
cp .orig-A/AA AA &&
git update-index --add AA &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'4 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in !O && A && B && A!=B case.' "
rm -f .git/index AA &&
cp .orig-A/AA AA &&
git update-index --add AA &&
echo extra >>AA &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'4 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in !O && A && B && A!=B case.' "
rm -f .git/index AA &&
cp .orig-A/AA AA &&
echo extra >>AA &&
git update-index --add AA &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
test_expect_success \
[PATCH] read-tree: fix too strong index requirement #5ALT This fixes too strong index requirement 3-way merge enforces in one case: the same file is added in both branches. In this case, the original code insisted that if the index file has that path, it must match our branch and be up-to-date. However in this particular case, it only has to match it, and can be dirty. We just need to make sure that we keep the work-tree copy instead of checking out the merge result. The resolution of such a path, however, cannot be left to outside script, because we will not keep the original stage0 entries for unmerged paths when read-tree finishes, and at that point, the knowledge of "if we resolve it to match the new file added in both branches, the merge succeeds and the work tree would not lose information, but we should _not_ update the work tree from the resulting index file" is lost. For this reason, the now code needs to resolve this case (#5ALT) internally. This affects some existing tests in the test suite, but all in positive ways. In t1000 (3-way test), this #5ALT case now gets one stage0 entry, instead of an identical stage2 and stage3 entry pair, for such a path, and one test that checked for merge failure (because the test assumed the "stricter-than-necessary" behaviour) does not have to fail anymore. In t1005 (emu23 test), two tests that involves a case where the work tree already had a change introduced in the upstream (aka "merged head"), the merge succeeds instead of failing. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-11 01:37:47 +00:00
'5 - must match in !O && A && B && A==B case.' \
"rm -f .git/index LL &&
cp .orig-A/LL LL &&
git update-index --add LL &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
[PATCH] read-tree: fix too strong index requirement #5ALT This fixes too strong index requirement 3-way merge enforces in one case: the same file is added in both branches. In this case, the original code insisted that if the index file has that path, it must match our branch and be up-to-date. However in this particular case, it only has to match it, and can be dirty. We just need to make sure that we keep the work-tree copy instead of checking out the merge result. The resolution of such a path, however, cannot be left to outside script, because we will not keep the original stage0 entries for unmerged paths when read-tree finishes, and at that point, the knowledge of "if we resolve it to match the new file added in both branches, the merge succeeds and the work tree would not lose information, but we should _not_ update the work tree from the resulting index file" is lost. For this reason, the now code needs to resolve this case (#5ALT) internally. This affects some existing tests in the test suite, but all in positive ways. In t1000 (3-way test), this #5ALT case now gets one stage0 entry, instead of an identical stage2 and stage3 entry pair, for such a path, and one test that checked for merge failure (because the test assumed the "stricter-than-necessary" behaviour) does not have to fail anymore. In t1005 (emu23 test), two tests that involves a case where the work tree already had a change introduced in the upstream (aka "merged head"), the merge succeeds instead of failing. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-11 01:37:47 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'5 - must match in !O && A && B && A==B case.' \
"rm -f .git/index LL &&
cp .orig-A/LL LL &&
git update-index --add LL &&
echo extra >>LL &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
[PATCH] read-tree: fix too strong index requirement #5ALT This fixes too strong index requirement 3-way merge enforces in one case: the same file is added in both branches. In this case, the original code insisted that if the index file has that path, it must match our branch and be up-to-date. However in this particular case, it only has to match it, and can be dirty. We just need to make sure that we keep the work-tree copy instead of checking out the merge result. The resolution of such a path, however, cannot be left to outside script, because we will not keep the original stage0 entries for unmerged paths when read-tree finishes, and at that point, the knowledge of "if we resolve it to match the new file added in both branches, the merge succeeds and the work tree would not lose information, but we should _not_ update the work tree from the resulting index file" is lost. For this reason, the now code needs to resolve this case (#5ALT) internally. This affects some existing tests in the test suite, but all in positive ways. In t1000 (3-way test), this #5ALT case now gets one stage0 entry, instead of an identical stage2 and stage3 entry pair, for such a path, and one test that checked for merge failure (because the test assumed the "stricter-than-necessary" behaviour) does not have to fail anymore. In t1005 (emu23 test), two tests that involves a case where the work tree already had a change introduced in the upstream (aka "merged head"), the merge succeeds instead of failing. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-11 01:37:47 +00:00
check_result"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'5 (fail) - must match A in !O && A && B && A==B case.' "
rm -f .git/index LL &&
cp .orig-A/LL LL &&
echo extra >>LL &&
git update-index --add LL &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'6 - must not exist in O && !A && !B case' "
rm -f .git/index DD &&
echo DD >DD
git update-index --add DD &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'7 - must not exist in O && !A && B && O!=B case' "
rm -f .git/index DM &&
cp .orig-B/DM DM &&
git update-index --add DM &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'8 - must not exist in O && !A && B && O==B case' "
rm -f .git/index DN &&
cp .orig-B/DN DN &&
git update-index --add DN &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
test_expect_success \
'9 - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && !B && O!=A case' \
"rm -f .git/index MD &&
cp .orig-A/MD MD &&
git update-index --add MD &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'9 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && !B && O!=A case' "
rm -f .git/index MD &&
cp .orig-A/MD MD &&
git update-index --add MD &&
echo extra >>MD &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'9 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && !B && O!=A case' "
rm -f .git/index MD &&
cp .orig-A/MD MD &&
echo extra >>MD &&
git update-index --add MD &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
test_expect_success \
'10 - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && !B && O==A case' \
"rm -f .git/index ND &&
cp .orig-A/ND ND &&
git update-index --add ND &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'10 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && !B && O==A case' "
rm -f .git/index ND &&
cp .orig-A/ND ND &&
git update-index --add ND &&
echo extra >>ND &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'10 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && !B && O==A case' "
rm -f .git/index ND &&
cp .orig-A/ND ND &&
echo extra >>ND &&
git update-index --add ND &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
test_expect_success \
'11 - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && B && O!=A && O!=B && A!=B case' \
"rm -f .git/index MM &&
cp .orig-A/MM MM &&
git update-index --add MM &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'11 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && B && O!=A && O!=B && A!=B case' "
rm -f .git/index MM &&
cp .orig-A/MM MM &&
git update-index --add MM &&
echo extra >>MM &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'11 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && B && O!=A && O!=B && A!=B case' "
rm -f .git/index MM &&
cp .orig-A/MM MM &&
echo extra >>MM &&
git update-index --add MM &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
test_expect_success \
'12 - must match A in O && A && B && O!=A && A==B case' \
"rm -f .git/index SS &&
cp .orig-A/SS SS &&
git update-index --add SS &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
test_expect_success \
'12 - must match A in O && A && B && O!=A && A==B case' \
"rm -f .git/index SS &&
cp .orig-A/SS SS &&
git update-index --add SS &&
echo extra >>SS &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'12 (fail) - must match A in O && A && B && O!=A && A==B case' "
rm -f .git/index SS &&
cp .orig-A/SS SS &&
echo extra >>SS &&
git update-index --add SS &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
test_expect_success \
'13 - must match A in O && A && B && O!=A && O==B case' \
"rm -f .git/index MN &&
cp .orig-A/MN MN &&
git update-index --add MN &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
test_expect_success \
'13 - must match A in O && A && B && O!=A && O==B case' \
"rm -f .git/index MN &&
cp .orig-A/MN MN &&
git update-index --add MN &&
echo extra >>MN &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
test_expect_success \
'14 - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && B && O==A && O!=B case' \
"rm -f .git/index NM &&
cp .orig-A/NM NM &&
git update-index --add NM &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
test_expect_success \
'14 - may match B in O && A && B && O==A && O!=B case' \
"rm -f .git/index NM &&
cp .orig-B/NM NM &&
git update-index --add NM &&
echo extra >>NM &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'14 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && B && O==A && O!=B case' "
rm -f .git/index NM &&
cp .orig-A/NM NM &&
git update-index --add NM &&
echo extra >>NM &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'14 (fail) - must match and be up-to-date in O && A && B && O==A && O!=B case' "
rm -f .git/index NM &&
cp .orig-A/NM NM &&
echo extra >>NM &&
git update-index --add NM &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
test_expect_success \
'15 - must match A in O && A && B && O==A && O==B case' \
"rm -f .git/index NN &&
cp .orig-A/NN NN &&
git update-index --add NN &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
test_expect_success \
'15 - must match A in O && A && B && O==A && O==B case' \
"rm -f .git/index NN &&
cp .orig-A/NN NN &&
git update-index --add NN &&
echo extra >>NN &&
git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B &&
check_result"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'15 (fail) - must match A in O && A && B && O==A && O==B case' "
rm -f .git/index NN &&
cp .orig-A/NN NN &&
echo extra >>NN &&
git update-index --add NN &&
test_must_fail git read-tree -m $tree_O $tree_A $tree_B
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
"
# #16
test_expect_success \
'16 - A matches in one and B matches in another.' \
'rm -f .git/index F16 &&
echo F16 >F16 &&
git update-index --add F16 &&
tree0=`git write-tree` &&
echo E16 >F16 &&
git update-index F16 &&
tree1=`git write-tree` &&
git read-tree -m $tree0 $tree1 $tree1 $tree0 &&
git ls-files --stage'
test_done