Derrick Stolee <sto...@gmail.com> writes:
> Uncovered code in 'next' not in 'master'
> --------------------------------------------
>
> pretty.c
> 4de9394dcb 1264) if (c->signature_check.primary_key_fingerprint)
> 4de9394dcb 1265) strbuf_addstr(sb,
> c->signature_check.primary_key_fingerprint);
> 4de9394dcb 1266) break;
Perhaps a patch along this line can be appended to the
mg/gpg-fingerprint topic that ends at 4de9394d ("gpg-interface.c:
obtain primary key fingerprint as well", 2018-10-22) to cover this
entry in the report.
I do not know how involved it would be to set up a new test case
that demonstrates a case where %GF and %GP are different, but if it
is very involved perhaps it is not worth adding such a case.
t/t7510-signed-commit.sh | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh
index 19ccae2869..9ecafedcc4 100755
--- a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh
+++ b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh
@@ -176,8 +176,9 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'show good signature with custom
format' '
13B6F51ECDDE430D
C O Mitter <commit...@example.com>
73D758744BE721698EC54E8713B6F51ECDDE430D
+ 73D758744BE721698EC54E8713B6F51ECDDE430D
EOF
- git log -1 --format="%G?%n%GK%n%GS%n%GF" sixth-signed >actual &&
+ git log -1 --format="%G?%n%GK%n%GS%n%GF%n%GP" sixth-signed >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual
'
