We force writing a ref if it does not exist. Originally, we only had to look
for the ref file to check if it existed. Now we have to look for a packed ref
as well. Luckily, resolve_ref already does all the work for us.
Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning
that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git".
This is useful to
- make sure the test does not fail because of a signal,
e.g. SIGSEGV, and
- advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests.
Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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>
Do *NOT* try this on a repository you care about:
git pack-refs --all --prune
git pack-refs
because while the first "pack-refs" does the right thing, the second
pack-refs will totally screw you over.
This is because the second one tries to pack only tags; we should
also pack what are already packed -- otherwise we would lose them.
[jc: with an additional test]
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
After deleting a branch l/k, you should be able to create a
branch l. Earlier we added remove_empty_directories() on the
ref creation side to remove leftover .git/refs/l directory but
we also need a matching code to remove .git/logs/refs/l
directory.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This changes 'git-pack-refs' to pack only tags by default.
Branches are meant to be updated, either by committing onto it
yourself or tracking remote branches, and packed entries can
become stale easily, but tags are usually "create once and live
forever" and benefit more from packing.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This bashism makes the test fail if /bin/sh is not bash.
Signed-off-by: Dennis Stosberg <dennis@stosberg.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Now that directory recursive remove works in the core C code, we
don't need to do it in "git-branch.sh".
Also add test cases to check that directory recursive remove will
continue to work.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Some of these test cases are from Junio.
One test case is commented out because it doesn't work right now.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Clemens Buchacher
Nanako Shiraishi
Stephan Beyer
Junio C Hamano
Linus Torvalds
Junio C Hamano
Dennis Stosberg
Christian Couder