2010-12-21 21:50:47 +03:00
|
|
|
#!/bin/sh
|
2010-09-19 13:59:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_description='git rebase - test patch id computation'
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-19 02:44:25 +03:00
|
|
|
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main
|
tests: mark tests relying on the current default for `init.defaultBranch`
In addition to the manual adjustment to let the `linux-gcc` CI job run
the test suite with `master` and then with `main`, this patch makes sure
that GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME is set in all test scripts
that currently rely on the initial branch name being `master by default.
To determine which test scripts to mark up, the first step was to
force-set the default branch name to `master` in
- all test scripts that contain the keyword `master`,
- t4211, which expects `t/t4211/history.export` with a hard-coded ref to
initialize the default branch,
- t5560 because it sources `t/t556x_common` which uses `master`,
- t8002 and t8012 because both source `t/annotate-tests.sh` which also
uses `master`)
This trick was performed by this command:
$ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/\(test-lib\|lib-\(bash\|cvs\|git-svn\)\|gitweb-lib\)\.sh$/i\
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\
' $(git grep -l master t/t[0-9]*.sh) \
t/t4211*.sh t/t5560*.sh t/t8002*.sh t/t8012*.sh
After that, careful, manual inspection revealed that some of the test
scripts containing the needle `master` do not actually rely on a
specific default branch name: either they mention `master` only in a
comment, or they initialize that branch specificially, or they do not
actually refer to the current default branch. Therefore, the
aforementioned modification was undone in those test scripts thusly:
$ git checkout HEAD -- \
t/t0027-auto-crlf.sh t/t0060-path-utils.sh \
t/t1011-read-tree-sparse-checkout.sh \
t/t1305-config-include.sh t/t1309-early-config.sh \
t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh t/t1450-fsck.sh \
t/t2024-checkout-dwim.sh \
t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh \
t/t3040-subprojects-basic.sh t/t3301-notes.sh \
t/t3308-notes-merge.sh t/t3423-rebase-reword.sh \
t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh \
t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh t/t4257-am-interactive.sh \
t/t5323-pack-redundant.sh t/t5401-update-hooks.sh \
t/t5511-refspec.sh t/t5526-fetch-submodules.sh \
t/t5529-push-errors.sh t/t5530-upload-pack-error.sh \
t/t5548-push-porcelain.sh \
t/t5552-skipping-fetch-negotiator.sh \
t/t5572-pull-submodule.sh t/t5608-clone-2gb.sh \
t/t5614-clone-submodules-shallow.sh \
t/t7508-status.sh t/t7606-merge-custom.sh \
t/t9302-fast-import-unpack-limit.sh
We excluded one set of test scripts in these commands, though: the range
of `git p4` tests. The reason? `git p4` stores the (foreign) remote
branch in the branch called `p4/master`, which is obviously not the
default branch. Manual analysis revealed that only five of these tests
actually require a specific default branch name to pass; They were
modified thusly:
$ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/lib-git-p4\.sh$/i\
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\
' t/t980[0167]*.sh t/t9811*.sh
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-19 02:44:19 +03:00
|
|
|
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME
|
|
|
|
|
2010-09-19 13:59:27 +04:00
|
|
|
. ./test-lib.sh
|
|
|
|
|
2014-06-10 01:03:10 +04:00
|
|
|
scramble () {
|
2010-09-19 13:59:27 +04:00
|
|
|
i=0
|
|
|
|
while read x
|
|
|
|
do
|
|
|
|
if test $i -ne 0
|
|
|
|
then
|
|
|
|
echo "$x"
|
|
|
|
fi
|
2010-12-21 21:50:47 +03:00
|
|
|
i=$((($i+1) % 10))
|
2014-06-10 01:03:10 +04:00
|
|
|
done <"$1" >"$1.new"
|
2010-09-19 13:59:27 +04:00
|
|
|
mv -f "$1.new" "$1"
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'setup' '
|
2011-12-08 17:10:17 +04:00
|
|
|
git commit --allow-empty -m initial &&
|
2010-09-19 13:59:27 +04:00
|
|
|
git tag root
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests
When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
- it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
- there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
(optional) performance tests".
- the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
machine-readable form.
If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
test_seq().
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-22 10:51:40 +03:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'setup: 500 lines' '
|
|
|
|
rm -f .gitattributes &&
|
2020-11-19 02:44:25 +03:00
|
|
|
git checkout -q -f main &&
|
t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests
When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
- it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
- there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
(optional) performance tests".
- the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
machine-readable form.
If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
test_seq().
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-22 10:51:40 +03:00
|
|
|
git reset --hard root &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 500 >file &&
|
|
|
|
git add file &&
|
|
|
|
git commit -q -m initial &&
|
|
|
|
git branch -f other &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scramble file &&
|
|
|
|
git add file &&
|
|
|
|
git commit -q -m "change big file" &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git checkout -q other &&
|
|
|
|
: >newfile &&
|
|
|
|
git add newfile &&
|
|
|
|
git commit -q -m "add small file" &&
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-19 02:44:25 +03:00
|
|
|
git cherry-pick main >/dev/null 2>&1
|
t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests
When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
- it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
- there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
(optional) performance tests".
- the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
machine-readable form.
If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
test_seq().
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-22 10:51:40 +03:00
|
|
|
'
|
2010-09-19 13:59:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests
When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
- it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
- there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
(optional) performance tests".
- the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
machine-readable form.
If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
test_seq().
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-22 10:51:40 +03:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'setup attributes' '
|
|
|
|
echo "file binary" >.gitattributes
|
|
|
|
'
|
2010-09-19 13:59:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests
When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
- it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
- there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
(optional) performance tests".
- the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
machine-readable form.
If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
test_seq().
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-22 10:51:40 +03:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'detect upstream patch' '
|
2020-11-19 02:44:25 +03:00
|
|
|
git checkout -q main &&
|
t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests
When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
- it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
- there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
(optional) performance tests".
- the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
machine-readable form.
If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
test_seq().
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-22 10:51:40 +03:00
|
|
|
scramble file &&
|
|
|
|
git add file &&
|
|
|
|
git commit -q -m "change big file again" &&
|
|
|
|
git checkout -q other^{} &&
|
2020-11-19 02:44:25 +03:00
|
|
|
git rebase main &&
|
|
|
|
git rev-list main...HEAD~ >revs &&
|
2020-04-22 23:42:42 +03:00
|
|
|
test_must_be_empty revs
|
t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests
When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
- it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
- there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
(optional) performance tests".
- the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
machine-readable form.
If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
test_seq().
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-22 10:51:40 +03:00
|
|
|
'
|
2010-09-19 13:59:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests
When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
- it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
- there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
(optional) performance tests".
- the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
machine-readable form.
If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
test_seq().
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-22 10:51:40 +03:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'do not drop patch' '
|
2020-11-19 02:44:25 +03:00
|
|
|
git branch -f squashed main &&
|
t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests
When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
- it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
- there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
(optional) performance tests".
- the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
machine-readable form.
If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
test_seq().
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-22 10:51:40 +03:00
|
|
|
git checkout -q -f squashed &&
|
|
|
|
git reset -q --soft HEAD~2 &&
|
|
|
|
git commit -q -m squashed &&
|
|
|
|
git checkout -q other^{} &&
|
|
|
|
test_must_fail git rebase squashed &&
|
|
|
|
git rebase --quit
|
|
|
|
'
|
2010-09-19 13:59:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_done
|