| Message ID | 6fed3b1b-1c4e-9298-19b6-7ad9c04c87dd@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | fix die_if_checked_out() when ignore_current_worktree | expand |
Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> writes: > + test_when_finished " > -+ git worktree remove wt1 && > -+ git worktree remove wt2 && > -+ git branch -d shared > -+ git checkout - > ++ git worktree remove wt1 ||: > ++ git worktree remove wt2 ||: > ++ git checkout - ||: > ++ git branch -D shared ||: > + " && Sorry, but I do not get the point of this construct. The test_cleanup variable that accumulates test_when_finished scripts is evaled without -e shopt set, so you can just remove all these ||: and add a single "true" at the end, like ... git checkout - git branch -D shared : " && for exactly the same effect, no?
On 25-feb-2023 14:50:07, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> writes: > > > + test_when_finished " > > -+ git worktree remove wt1 && > > -+ git worktree remove wt2 && > > -+ git branch -d shared > > -+ git checkout - > > ++ git worktree remove wt1 ||: > > ++ git worktree remove wt2 ||: > > ++ git checkout - ||: > > ++ git branch -D shared ||: > > + " && > > Sorry, but I do not get the point of this construct. The > test_cleanup variable that accumulates test_when_finished scripts is > evaled without -e shopt set, so you can just remove all these ||: > and add a single "true" at the end, like > > ... > git checkout - > git branch -D shared > : > " && > > for exactly the same effect, no? Yes, of course. I agree that all of that '||:' can be confusing, but I'm not sure if a final ':' is much better. As I said in my response to Eric, I don't have a clear opinion here. test_when_finished() was introduced in 2bf78867 (test-lib: Let tests specify commands to be run at end of test, 2010-05-02) to allow indicating some actions to be executed after the test block finishes, even if the test fails, to leave a repository or overall situation healthy for the next tests. With that in mind, I ask myself, is it worth removing the worktrees here? Is it worth reporting a possible error in that removal? If, for example, in the future we deny the removal of a worktree under bisect, is it worth reporting the failure here? What about the "shared" branch? ... I Dunno. Thank you for reviewing this patch.
Since v3, two errors in 4/4 have been fixed: - "checkout -" must be done before "branch -d" - "branch -D" instead of "branch -d" because "shared" is a non-merged branch. Also, '||:' has been used to chain commands in the test_when_finished() block. Rubén Justo (4): worktree: introduce is_shared_symref() branch: fix die_if_checked_out() when ignore_current_worktree rebase: refuse to switch to a branch already checked out elsewhere (test) switch: reject if the branch is already checked out elsewhere (test) branch.c | 14 +++++++---- t/t2060-switch.sh | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++ t/t3400-rebase.sh | 14 +++++++++++ worktree.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ worktree.h | 6 +++++ 5 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) Range-diff against v3: 1: 40b5ea54d3 = 1: 22d0944aad worktree: introduce is_shared_symref() 2: 2f1479b354 = 2: e7ba7b6fdd branch: fix die_if_checked_out() when ignore_current_worktree 3: 81a5b619c3 = 3: 8de8319d0e rebase: refuse to switch to a branch already checked out elsewhere (test) 4: 6559e58344 ! 4: 27d6ae2755 switch: reject if the branch is already checked out elsewhere (test) @@ t/t2060-switch.sh: test_expect_success 'tracking info copied with autoSetupMerge +test_expect_success 'switch back when temporarily detached and checked out elsewhere ' ' + test_when_finished " -+ git worktree remove wt1 && -+ git worktree remove wt2 && -+ git branch -d shared -+ git checkout - ++ git worktree remove wt1 ||: ++ git worktree remove wt2 ||: ++ git checkout - ||: ++ git branch -D shared ||: + " && + git checkout -b shared && + test_commit shared-first &&