On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:53:30AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > > >> + # the new branch should not have been created upstream > >> + test_must_fail git -C "$d" rev-parse refs/heads/atomic && > > > > The new branch should not have been created; if this rev-parse > > succeeded, it would be a bug. > > One thing I forgot. If refs/heads/atomic did not exist, but say > refs/tags/refs/heads/atomic did, the rev-parse would succeed, which > is a rather unfortunate source of confusion. > > Of course, we know we have never touched "$d" to cause such a funny > tag, so rev-parse is good enough in practice, but > > git -C "$d" show-ref --verify refs/heads/atomic > > would not dwim (its --verify mode was invented specifically for > rectifying this issue with rev-parse, if I recall correctly), and is > more appropriate best-practice version to write here, especially if > we anticipate that future developers and Git users would treat this > line as an example to mimic. > > > Up to point, I have no possible improvements to offer ;-) > > Very well done. > > So, I lied, but still the tests looked quite well done.
Oh, that's very interesting! Thanks for pointing it out. :) Reroll coming in a few. Thanks, Junio. - Emily
