These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain,
but during a setup phase. We may fail to notice failure in
commands that build the test environment, but these are
typically not expected to fail at all (but it's still good
to double-check that our test environment is what we
expect).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 43eb920 switched one of the sub-repository in this
test to matching to prepare for a world where the default
becomes "simple". However, the main repository needs a
similar change.
We did not notice any test failure when merged with b2ed944
(push: switch default from "matching" to "simple", 2013-01-04)
because t5531.6 is trying to provoke a failure of "git push"
due to a submodule check. When combined with b2ed944 the
push still fails, but for the wrong reason (because our
upstream setup does not exist, not because of the submodule).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When using this option git will search for all submodules that
have changed in the revisions to be send. It will then try to
push the currently checked out branch of each submodule.
This helps when a user has finished working on a change which
involves submodules and just wants to push everything in one go.
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Gustafsson <iveqy@iveqy.com>
Mentored-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Mentored-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When working with submodules it is easy to forget to push a
submodule to the server but pushing a super-project that
contains a commit for that submodule. The result is that the
superproject points at a submodule commit that is not available
on the server.
This adds the option --recurse-submodules=check to push. When
using this option git will check that all submodule commits that
are about to be pushed are present on a remote of the submodule.
To be able to use a combined diff, disabling a diff callback has
been removed from combined-diff.c.
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Gustafsson <iveqy@iveqy.com>
Mentored-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Mentored-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Breaks in a test assertion's && chain can potentially hide
failures from earlier commands in the chain.
Commands intended to fail should be marked with !, test_must_fail, or
test_might_fail. The examples in this patch do not require that.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When unpack-objects is run under the --strict option, objects that have
pointers to other objects are verified for the reachability at the end, by
calling check_object() on each of them, and letting check_object to walk
the reachable objects from them using fsck_walk() recursively.
The function however misunderstands the semantics of fsck_walk() function
when it makes a call to it, setting itself as the callback. fsck_walk()
expects the callback function to return a non-zero value to signal an
error (negative value causes an immediate abort, positive value is still
an error but allows further checks on sibling objects) and return zero to
signal a success. The function however returned 1 on some non error
cases, and to cover up this mistake, complained only when fsck_walk() did
not detect any error.
To fix this double-bug, make the function return zero on all success
cases, and also check for non-zero return from fsck_walk() for an error.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
