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>
"git diff" does not record index lines for pure mode changes (i.e. no
lines changed). Therefore, apply --index-info would call out a bogus
error.
Instead, fall back to reading the info from the current index.
Incidentally, this fixes an error where git-rebase would not rebase a
commit including a pure mode change, and changes requiring a threeway
merge.
Noticed and later tested by Chris Shoemaker.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Consider this history:
o--o-...-B <- origin
\ \
x--x--M--x--x <- master
In this situation, rebase considers master fully up-to-date and would
not do anything. However, if there were additional commits on origin,
the rebase would run and move the commits x on top of origin.
Here we change rebase to short-circuit out only if the history since origin
is strictly linear. Consequently, the above as well as a history like this
would be linearized:
o--o <- origin
\
x--x
\ \
x--M--x--x <- master
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@telecom.at>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL is of a certain form, `git rebase master' will blow
away the author name and email when fast-forward merging commits. I
have not tracked it down, but here is a testcase that demonstrates the
behavior.
Signed-off-by: Amos Waterland <apw@us.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@watson.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
