On 03/01/2017 01:34 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>> On 02/22/2017 03:04 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh (new +x) | 95
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100755 t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh
>>>
>>> diff --git a/t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh b/t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh
>>> new file mode 100755
>>> index 000000000..3b30ba62f
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/t/t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh
>>> [...]
>>
>> I haven't actually read this far in the patch series, but I noticed that
>> a test in this file fails:
>>
>>
>> t1406-submodule-ref-store.sh (Wstat: 256 Tests: 15
>> Failed: 1)
>> Failed test: 10
>> Non-zero exit status: 1
>>
>> I didn't have time to look into it more; let me know if you can't
>> reproduce it.
>
> Fantastic. No I couldn't reproduce it, even --valgrind did not
> complain. First step maybe just pushing your branch somewhere so I can
> try out if you're applying the patches via mail (maybe there's some
> changes in the base that affect this). .Otherwise /t1406-* -v -i might
> be enough clue for me to dig in, I hope.
I'm testing c5302654930070135eec9bc1b4ef99b14e0f28ee from Junio's GitHub
fork.
Unfortunately, the test succeeds (every time) when I run just `t1406-*`
or with `-d` or `-i` options, but fails (every time) when run as part of
the whole test suite, so it's a bit tricky to dig deeper.
By trial and error, I found that the test succeeds if I comment out the
"for_each_reflog()" test. By having that test write its results to
`/tmp` where they won't be deleted, I found that the problem is that the
`actual` results are not sorted correctly:
refs/heads/new-master 0x0
refs/heads/master 0x0
HEAD 0x1
I don't know why it's so Heisenbergish.
Michael
