git/t/t5710-info-alternate.sh

113 lines
2.3 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (C) 2006 Martin Waitz <tali@admingilde.org>
#
test_description='test transitive info/alternate entries'
. ./test-lib.sh
# test that a file is not reachable in the current repository
# but that it is after creating a info/alternate entry
reachable_via() {
alternate="$1"
file="$2"
if git cat-file -e "HEAD:$file"; then return 1; fi
echo "$alternate" >> .git/objects/info/alternate
git cat-file -e "HEAD:$file"
}
test_valid_repo() {
git fsck --full > fsck.log &&
test `wc -l < fsck.log` = 0
}
base_dir=`pwd`
test_expect_success 'preparing first repository' \
'test_create_repo A && cd A &&
echo "Hello World" > file1 &&
git add file1 &&
git commit -m "Initial commit" file1 &&
git repack -a -d &&
git prune'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'preparing second repository' \
'git clone -l -s A B && cd B &&
echo "foo bar" > file2 &&
git add file2 &&
git commit -m "next commit" file2 &&
git repack -a -d -l &&
git prune'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'preparing third repository' \
'git clone -l -s B C && cd C &&
echo "Goodbye, cruel world" > file3 &&
git add file3 &&
git commit -m "one more" file3 &&
git repack -a -d -l &&
git prune'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'creating too deep nesting' \
'git clone -l -s C D &&
git clone -l -s D E &&
git clone -l -s E F &&
git clone -l -s F G &&
git clone -l -s G H'
test_expect_success 'invalidity of deepest repository' \
'cd H && {
test_valid_repo
test $? -ne 0
}'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'validity of third repository' \
'cd C &&
test_valid_repo'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'validity of fourth repository' \
'cd D &&
test_valid_repo'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'breaking of loops' \
'echo "$base_dir"/B/.git/objects >> "$base_dir"/A/.git/objects/info/alternates&&
cd C &&
test_valid_repo'
cd "$base_dir"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$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 'that info/alternates is necessary' \
'cd C &&
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$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
rm -f .git/objects/info/alternates &&
! (test_valid_repo)'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'that relative alternate is possible for current dir' \
'cd C &&
echo "../../../B/.git/objects" > .git/objects/info/alternates &&
test_valid_repo'
cd "$base_dir"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$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 \
'that relative alternate is only possible for current dir' '
cd D &&
! (test_valid_repo)
'
cd "$base_dir"
test_done