Hi Junio, On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > > > In this particular case, I think that we really, really *just* need to > > verify that the presence of the hook switches off the default behavior of > > updateInstead. *Nothing* else is needed to verify that this particular > > functionality hasn't regressed. I.e. something like: > > > > +test_expect_success 'updateInstead with push-to-checkout hook' ' > > + rm -fr testrepo && > > + git clone . testrepo && > > + ( > > + cd testrepo && > > + echo unclean > path1 && > > + git config receive.denyCurrentBranch updateInstead && > > + echo 'touch yep' | write_script .git/hooks/push-to-checkout > > + ) && > > + git push testrepo HEAD^:refs/heads/master && > > + test unclean = $(cat testrepo/path1) && > > + test -f testrepo/yep > > +' > > > > would be more appropriate (although it probably has one or three bugs, > > given that I wrote this in the mailer). > > Not really. You need to remember that we write tests not to show > off the new shiny, but to protect essential invariants from being > broken by careless others attempting to rewrite the implementation > in the future. Fair enough. You are the boss. I am not, therefore it does not matter what I think, Johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
