| Message ID | 20181224212425.16596-2-orgads@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] t5403: Refactor | expand |
orgads@gmail.com writes: > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t5403: Refactor Hmph. "Refactor" alone leaves readers wondering "refactor what?", "refactor for what?" and "refactor how?". Given that the overfall goal this change seeks seems to be to simplify it by losing about 20 lines, how about justifying it like so? Subject: t5403: simplify by using a single repository There is no strong reason to use separate clones to run these tests; just use a single test repository prepared with more modern test_commit shell helper function. While at it, replace three "awk '{print $N}'" on the same file with shell built-in "read" into three variables. > From: Orgad Shaneh <orgads@gmail.com> > > * Replace multiple clones and commits by test_commits. > * Replace 3 invocations of awk by read. > > Signed-off-by: Orgad Shaneh <orgads@gmail.com> > --- > t/t5403-post-checkout-hook.sh | 80 +++++++++++++---------------------- > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/t/t5403-post-checkout-hook.sh b/t/t5403-post-checkout-hook.sh > index fc898c9eac..9f9a5163c5 100755 > --- a/t/t5403-post-checkout-hook.sh > +++ b/t/t5403-post-checkout-hook.sh > @@ -7,77 +7,55 @@ test_description='Test the post-checkout hook.' > . ./test-lib.sh > > test_expect_success setup ' > - echo Data for commit0. >a && > - echo Data for commit0. >b && > - git update-index --add a && > - git update-index --add b && > - tree0=$(git write-tree) && > - commit0=$(echo setup | git commit-tree $tree0) && > - git update-ref refs/heads/master $commit0 && > - git clone ./. clone1 && > - git clone ./. clone2 && > - GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git branch new2 && > - echo Data for commit1. >clone2/b && > - GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git add clone2/b && > - GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git commit -m new2 > -' > - > -for clone in 1 2; do > - cat >clone${clone}/.git/hooks/post-checkout <<'EOF' > -#!/bin/sh > -echo $@ > $GIT_DIR/post-checkout.args > -EOF > - chmod u+x clone${clone}/.git/hooks/post-checkout > -done > - > -test_expect_success 'post-checkout runs as expected ' ' > - GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git checkout master && > - test -e clone1/.git/post-checkout.args > + mv .git/hooks-disabled .git/hooks && I am not sure why you want to do this---it sends a wrong signal to readers saying that you want to use whatever hook that are in the moved-away .git/hooks-disabled/ directory. I am guessing that the only reason why you do this is because there must be .git/hooks directory in order for write_script below to work, so a more readable approach would be to "mkdir .git/hooks" instead, no? > + write_script .git/hooks/post-checkout <<-\EOF && > + echo $@ >.git/post-checkout.args A dollar-at inside a shell script that is not in a pair of dq always makes readers wonder if the author forgot dq around it or omitted eq around it deliberately; avoid it. In this case, use "$@" (i.e. within dq) would be more friendly to readers. The second best is to write it $*, as in this context we know that $1, $2 and $3 will not contain any $IFS, that echo will take these three separate arguments and write them on one line separated by a space in between, which will allow "read A B C" read them. Or "$*" to feed such a single line with three arguments separated by a space in between as a single string to echo for the same effect. > + EOF > + test_commit one && > + test_commit two && > + test_commit three three Makes readers wonder why the last one duplicates. Is this because you somehow do not want to use three.t as the pathname in a later test? "test_commit X" that creates test file X.t is a quite well established convention (see "git grep '\.t\>' t/"), by the way. > ' > > test_expect_success 'post-checkout receives the right arguments with HEAD unchanged ' ' > - old=$(awk "{print \$1}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && > - new=$(awk "{print \$2}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && > - flag=$(awk "{print \$3}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && > - test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 > + git checkout master && > + test -e .git/post-checkout.args && Use "test -f", as you do know you'd be creating a file ("-e" succeeds as long as it _exists_, and does not care if it is a file or directory or whatever). > + read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && This indeed is much nicer. > + test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 && > + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args The last one is not a test but a clean-up. If any of the earlier step failed (e.g. $old and $new were different), the output file would be left behind, resulting in confusing the next test. Instead, do it like so: test_expect_success 'title of the test' ' test_when_finished "rm -f .git/post-checkout.args" && git checkout master && test -f .git/post-checkout.args && read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 ' That is, use test_when_finished() before the step that creates the file that may be left behind to arrange that it will be cleaned at the end. This comment on clean-up applies to _all_ tests in this patch that has "rm -f .git/post-checkout.args" at the end. > ' > > test_expect_success 'post-checkout runs as expected ' ' > - GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git checkout master && > - test -e clone1/.git/post-checkout.args > + git checkout master && > + test -e .git/post-checkout.args && > + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args > ' Now that the script got so simplified, this one looks even more redundant, given that the previous one already checked the same "checkout 'master' when already at the tip of 'master'" situation. Do we still need this one, in other words? > test_expect_success 'post-checkout args are correct with git checkout -b ' ' > - GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git checkout -b new1 && > - old=$(awk "{print \$1}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && > - new=$(awk "{print \$2}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && > - flag=$(awk "{print \$3}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && > - test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 > + git checkout -b new1 && > + read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && > + test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 && > + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args > ' This one forgets "did the hook run and create the file" before "read", unlike the previous tests. It is not strictly necessary as "read" will fail if the file is not there, but it'd be better to be consistent. > if test "$(git config --bool core.filemode)" = true; then This is a tangent but this conditional came from an ancient d42ec126 ("disable post-checkout test on Cygwin", 2009-03-17) that says disable post-checkout test on Cygwin It is broken because of the tricks we have to play with lstat to get the bearable perfomance out of the call. Sadly, it disables access to Cygwin's executable attribute, which Windows filesystems do not have at all. I wonder if this is still relevant these days (Cc'ed Ramsay for input). Windows port should be running enabled hooks (and X_OK is made pretty much no-op in compat/mingw.c IIUC), so the above conditional is overly broad anyway, even if Cygwin still has issues with the executable bit. > mkdir -p templates/hooks > -cat >templates/hooks/post-checkout <<'EOF' > -#!/bin/sh > -echo $@ > $GIT_DIR/post-checkout.args > +write_script templates/hooks/post-checkout <<-\EOF > +echo $@ >$GIT_DIR/post-checkout.args > EOF > -chmod +x templates/hooks/post-checkout > > test_expect_success 'post-checkout hook is triggered by clone' ' > git clone --template=templates . clone3 &&
On 28/12/2018 22:34, Junio C Hamano wrote: > orgads@gmail.com writes: > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t5403: Refactor > [snip] >> if test "$(git config --bool core.filemode)" = true; then > > This is a tangent but this conditional came from an ancient d42ec126 > ("disable post-checkout test on Cygwin", 2009-03-17) that says > > disable post-checkout test on Cygwin > > It is broken because of the tricks we have to play with > lstat to get the bearable perfomance out of the call. > Sadly, it disables access to Cygwin's executable attribute, > which Windows filesystems do not have at all. > > I wonder if this is still relevant these days (Cc'ed Ramsay for > input). Ah, no, the 'tricks we have to play with lstat' mentioned in that commit message are long gone! ;-) If you remove that conditional, then the test passes just fine. ATB, Ramsay Jones
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 12:34 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > orgads@gmail.com writes: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t5403: Refactor > > Hmph. "Refactor" alone leaves readers wondering "refactor what?", > "refactor for what?" and "refactor how?". Given that the overfall > goal this change seeks seems to be to simplify it by losing about 20 > lines, how about justifying it like so? > > Subject: t5403: simplify by using a single repository > > There is no strong reason to use separate clones to run > these tests; just use a single test repository prepared > with more modern test_commit shell helper function. > > While at it, replace three "awk '{print $N}'" on the same > file with shell built-in "read" into three variables. Done [snip] > > + mv .git/hooks-disabled .git/hooks && > > I am not sure why you want to do this---it sends a wrong signal to > readers saying that you want to use whatever hook that are in the > moved-away .git/hooks-disabled/ directory. I am guessing that the > only reason why you do this is because there must be .git/hooks > directory in order for write_script below to work, so a more > readable approach would be to "mkdir .git/hooks" instead, no? Agreed. Done. > > + write_script .git/hooks/post-checkout <<-\EOF && > > + echo $@ >.git/post-checkout.args > > A dollar-at inside a shell script that is not in a pair of dq always > makes readers wonder if the author forgot dq around it or omitted eq > around it deliberately; avoid it. > > In this case, use "$@" (i.e. within dq) would be more friendly to > readers. Done. [snip] > > + EOF > > + test_commit one && > > + test_commit two && > > + test_commit three three > > Makes readers wonder why the last one duplicates. Is this because > you somehow do not want to use three.t as the pathname in a later > test? "test_commit X" that creates test file X.t is a quite well > established convention (see "git grep '\.t\>' t/"), by the way. Done. I wasn't aware of that. [snip] > > + test -e .git/post-checkout.args && > > Use "test -f", as you do know you'd be creating a file ("-e" > succeeds as long as it _exists_, and does not care if it is a file > or directory or whatever). Just removed these `test -e` lines. read fails anyway if the file doesn't exist. > > + read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && > > This indeed is much nicer. Credit goes to Johannes :) > > + test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 && > > + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args > > The last one is not a test but a clean-up. If any of the earlier > step failed (e.g. $old and $new were different), the output file > would be left behind, resulting in confusing the next test. > > Instead, do it like so: > > test_expect_success 'title of the test' ' > test_when_finished "rm -f .git/post-checkout.args" && > git checkout master && > test -f .git/post-checkout.args && > read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && > test $old = $new && > test $flag = 1 > ' > > That is, use test_when_finished() before the step that creates the > file that may be left behind to arrange that it will be cleaned at > the end. > > This comment on clean-up applies to _all_ tests in this patch that > has "rm -f .git/post-checkout.args" at the end. Done > > test_expect_success 'post-checkout runs as expected ' ' > > - GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git checkout master && > > - test -e clone1/.git/post-checkout.args > > + git checkout master && > > + test -e .git/post-checkout.args && > > + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args > > ' > > Now that the script got so simplified, this one looks even more > redundant, given that the previous one already checked the same > "checkout 'master' when already at the tip of 'master'" situation. > > Do we still need this one, in other words? I agree. Removed. > > test_expect_success 'post-checkout args are correct with git checkout -b ' ' > > - GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git checkout -b new1 && > > - old=$(awk "{print \$1}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && > > - new=$(awk "{print \$2}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && > > - flag=$(awk "{print \$3}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && > > - test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 > > + git checkout -b new1 && > > + read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && > > + test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 && > > + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args > > ' > > This one forgets "did the hook run and create the file" before > "read", unlike the previous tests. It is not strictly necessary as > "read" will fail if the file is not there, but it'd be better to be > consistent. Made consistent by removing file existence test, and left only read. > > if test "$(git config --bool core.filemode)" = true; then > > This is a tangent but this conditional came from an ancient d42ec126 > ("disable post-checkout test on Cygwin", 2009-03-17) that says > > disable post-checkout test on Cygwin > > It is broken because of the tricks we have to play with > lstat to get the bearable perfomance out of the call. > Sadly, it disables access to Cygwin's executable attribute, > which Windows filesystems do not have at all. > > I wonder if this is still relevant these days (Cc'ed Ramsay for > input). Windows port should be running enabled hooks (and X_OK is > made pretty much no-op in compat/mingw.c IIUC), so the above > conditional is overly broad anyway, even if Cygwin still has issues > with the executable bit. Reverted. Thanks, - Orgad
diff --git a/t/t5403-post-checkout-hook.sh b/t/t5403-post-checkout-hook.sh index fc898c9eac..9f9a5163c5 100755 --- a/t/t5403-post-checkout-hook.sh +++ b/t/t5403-post-checkout-hook.sh @@ -7,77 +7,55 @@ test_description='Test the post-checkout hook.' . ./test-lib.sh test_expect_success setup ' - echo Data for commit0. >a && - echo Data for commit0. >b && - git update-index --add a && - git update-index --add b && - tree0=$(git write-tree) && - commit0=$(echo setup | git commit-tree $tree0) && - git update-ref refs/heads/master $commit0 && - git clone ./. clone1 && - git clone ./. clone2 && - GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git branch new2 && - echo Data for commit1. >clone2/b && - GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git add clone2/b && - GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git commit -m new2 -' - -for clone in 1 2; do - cat >clone${clone}/.git/hooks/post-checkout <<'EOF' -#!/bin/sh -echo $@ > $GIT_DIR/post-checkout.args -EOF - chmod u+x clone${clone}/.git/hooks/post-checkout -done - -test_expect_success 'post-checkout runs as expected ' ' - GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git checkout master && - test -e clone1/.git/post-checkout.args + mv .git/hooks-disabled .git/hooks && + write_script .git/hooks/post-checkout <<-\EOF && + echo $@ >.git/post-checkout.args + EOF + test_commit one && + test_commit two && + test_commit three three ' test_expect_success 'post-checkout receives the right arguments with HEAD unchanged ' ' - old=$(awk "{print \$1}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && - new=$(awk "{print \$2}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && - flag=$(awk "{print \$3}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && - test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 + git checkout master && + test -e .git/post-checkout.args && + read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && + test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 && + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args ' test_expect_success 'post-checkout runs as expected ' ' - GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git checkout master && - test -e clone1/.git/post-checkout.args + git checkout master && + test -e .git/post-checkout.args && + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args ' test_expect_success 'post-checkout args are correct with git checkout -b ' ' - GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git checkout -b new1 && - old=$(awk "{print \$1}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && - new=$(awk "{print \$2}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && - flag=$(awk "{print \$3}" clone1/.git/post-checkout.args) && - test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 + git checkout -b new1 && + read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && + test $old = $new && test $flag = 1 && + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args ' test_expect_success 'post-checkout receives the right args with HEAD changed ' ' - GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git checkout new2 && - old=$(awk "{print \$1}" clone2/.git/post-checkout.args) && - new=$(awk "{print \$2}" clone2/.git/post-checkout.args) && - flag=$(awk "{print \$3}" clone2/.git/post-checkout.args) && - test $old != $new && test $flag = 1 + git checkout two && + read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && + test $old != $new && test $flag = 1 && + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args ' test_expect_success 'post-checkout receives the right args when not switching branches ' ' - GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git checkout master b && - old=$(awk "{print \$1}" clone2/.git/post-checkout.args) && - new=$(awk "{print \$2}" clone2/.git/post-checkout.args) && - flag=$(awk "{print \$3}" clone2/.git/post-checkout.args) && - test $old = $new && test $flag = 0 + git checkout master -- three && + read old new flag <.git/post-checkout.args && + test $old = $new && test $flag = 0 && + rm -f .git/post-checkout.args ' if test "$(git config --bool core.filemode)" = true; then mkdir -p templates/hooks -cat >templates/hooks/post-checkout <<'EOF' -#!/bin/sh -echo $@ > $GIT_DIR/post-checkout.args +write_script templates/hooks/post-checkout <<-\EOF +echo $@ >$GIT_DIR/post-checkout.args EOF -chmod +x templates/hooks/post-checkout test_expect_success 'post-checkout hook is triggered by clone' ' git clone --template=templates . clone3 &&