Emily Shaffer <emilyshaf...@google.com> writes:
> +test_expect_success 'push --atomic also prevents branch creation, reports
> collateral' '
> + # Setup upstream repo - empty for now
> + d=$HTTPD_DOCUMENT_ROOT_PATH/atomic-branches.git &&
> + git init --bare "$d" &&
> + test_config -C "$d" http.receivepack true &&
> + up="$HTTPD_URL"/smart/atomic-branches.git &&
> +
> + # Tell up about two branches for now
-ECANTPARSE "Tell up" part.
> + test_commit atomic1 &&
> + test_commit atomic2 &&
> + git branch collateral &&
> + git push "$up" master collateral &&
OK, so an initially empty directory $d that appears to network
clients as $up now has two branches, 'master' and 'collateral',
both pointing at the same history that ends with two commits,
atomic2 whose parent is atomic1.
> + # collateral is a valid push, but should be failed by atomic push
> + git checkout collateral &&
> + test_commit collateral1 &&
> +
> + # Make master incompatible with upstream to provoke atomic
> + git checkout master &&
> + git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
collateral grows, master rewinds.
> + # Add a new branch which should be failed by atomic push. This is a
> + # regression case.
> + git branch atomic &&
Another branch atomic is added
> + # --atomic should cause entire push to be rejected
> + test_must_fail git push --atomic "$up" master atomic collateral
> 2>output &&
Attempt to push all three: collateral alone would be OK, so is
atomic, but because master rewinds, we expect none of the three to
go through.
> + # the new branch should not have been created upstream
> + test_must_fail git -C "$d" rev-parse refs/heads/atomic &&
The new branch should not have been created; if this rev-parse
succeeded, it would be a bug.
Up to point, I have no possible improvements to offer ;-)
Very well done.
> + # the failed refs should be indicated
> + grep "master -> master" output | grep rejected &&
I'd rather see the effect, i.e. what the command did that can be
observed externally, than the report, i.e. what the command claims
to have done, if it is equally straight-forward to verify either.
That can be done by making sure that the output from "git -C "$d"
rev-parse refs/heads/master" match output from "git rev-parse
atomic2", no? That ensures 'master' in the receiving end stayed the
same.
> + # the collateral failure refs should be indicated
> + grep "atomic -> atomic" output | grep "atomic push failed" &&
> + grep "collateral -> collateral" output | grep "atomic push failed"
Likewise for the other two.
FWIW, these three can further lose a process each, i.e.
grep "^ ! .*rejected.* master -> master" output
even if we for some reason do not want to check the effect and take
the claim by the command being tested at the face value (which I do
not think is a good idea).
Thanks.
