[v3,08/11] t6423: add an explanation about why one of the tests does not pass

Commit Message

Philippe Blain via GitGitGadget Aug. 10, 2020, 10:29 p.m. UTC

From: Elijah Newren <[e-mail]>

I had long since forgotten the idea behind this test and why it failed,
and took a little while to figure it out.  To prevent others from having
to spend a similar time on it, add an explanation in the comments.
However, the reasoning in the explanation makes me question why I
considered it a failure at all.  I'm not sure if I had a better reason
when I originally wrote it, but for now just add commentary about the
possible expectations and why it behaves the way it does right now.

Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <[e-mail]>
---
 t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

Patch

diff --git a/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh
index bd0f17a3be..2b4a482277 100755
--- a/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh
+++ b/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh
@@ -2843,6 +2843,14 @@  test_expect_success '9f: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs
 #   Commit A: priority/{alpha,bravo}/$more_files
 #   Commit B: goal/{a,b}/$more_files, goal/c
 #   Expected: priority/{alpha,bravo}/$more_files, priority/c
+# We currently fail this test because the directory renames we detect are
+#   goal/a/ -> priority/alpha/
+#   goal/b/ -> priority/bravo/
+# We do not detect
+#   goal/   -> priority/
+# because of no files found within goal/, and the fact that "a" != "alpha"
+# and "b" != "bravo".  But I'm not sure it's really a failure given that
+# viewpoint...
 
 test_setup_9g () {
 	test_create_repo 9g &&