1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-16 06:03:44 +01:00
git/t/t9137-git-svn-dcommit-clobber-series.sh

64 lines
1.7 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2007 Eric Wong
test_description='git svn dcommit clobber series'
. ./lib-git-svn.sh
test_expect_success 'initialize repo' '
mkdir import &&
(cd import &&
awk "BEGIN { for (i = 1; i < 64; i++) { print i } }" > file
svn_cmd import -m "initial" . "$svnrepo"
) &&
git svn init "$svnrepo" &&
git svn fetch &&
test -e file
'
test_expect_success '(supposedly) non-conflicting change from SVN' '
test x"`sed -n -e 58p < file`" = x58 &&
test x"`sed -n -e 61p < file`" = x61 &&
svn_cmd co "$svnrepo" tmp &&
(cd tmp &&
"$PERL_PATH" -i.bak -p -e "s/^58$/5588/" file &&
"$PERL_PATH" -i.bak -p -e "s/^61$/6611/" file &&
poke file &&
test x"`sed -n -e 58p < file`" = x5588 &&
test x"`sed -n -e 61p < file`" = x6611 &&
svn_cmd commit -m "58 => 5588, 61 => 6611"
)
'
test_expect_success 'some unrelated changes to git' "
echo hi > life &&
git update-index --add life &&
git commit -m hi-life &&
echo bye >> life &&
git commit -m bye-life life
"
test_expect_success 'change file but in unrelated area' "
test x\"\`sed -n -e 4p < file\`\" = x4 &&
test x\"\`sed -n -e 7p < file\`\" = x7 &&
"$PERL_PATH" -i.bak -p -e 's/^4\$/4444/' file &&
"$PERL_PATH" -i.bak -p -e 's/^7\$/7777/' file &&
test x\"\`sed -n -e 4p < file\`\" = x4444 &&
test x\"\`sed -n -e 7p < file\`\" = x7777 &&
git commit -m '4 => 4444, 7 => 7777' file &&
git svn dcommit &&
svn_cmd up tmp &&
cd tmp &&
test x\"\`sed -n -e 4p < file\`\" = x4444 &&
test x\"\`sed -n -e 7p < file\`\" = x7777 &&
test x\"\`sed -n -e 58p < file\`\" = x5588 &&
test x\"\`sed -n -e 61p < file\`\" = x6611
"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success 'attempt to dcommit with a dirty index' '
echo foo >>file &&
git add file &&
test_must_fail git svn dcommit
'
test_done