summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t3201-branch-contains.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2019-08-20t3201: abstract away SHA-1-specific constantsbrian m. carlson
Adjust the test so that it computes variables for object IDs instead of using hard-coded hashes. Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-30tests: make use of the test_must_be_empty functionÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Change various tests that use an idiom of the form: >expect && test_cmp expect actual To instead use: test_must_be_empty actual The test_must_be_empty() wrapper was introduced in ca8d148daf ("test: test_must_be_empty helper", 2013-06-09). Many of these tests have been added after that time. This was mostly found with, and manually pruned from: git grep '^\s+>.*expect.* &&$' t Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-03-24ref-filter: add --no-contains option to tag/branch/for-each-refÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Change the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands to have a --no-contains option in addition to their longstanding --contains options. This allows for finding the last-good rollout tag given a known-bad <commit>. Given a hypothetically bad commit cf5c7253e0, the git version to revert to can be found with this hacky two-liner: (git tag -l 'v[0-9]*'; git tag -l --contains cf5c7253e0 'v[0-9]*') | sort | uniq -c | grep -E '^ *1 ' | awk '{print $2}' | tail -n 10 With this new --no-contains option the same can be achieved with: git tag -l --no-contains cf5c7253e0 'v[0-9]*' | sort | tail -n 10 As the filtering machinery is shared between the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands, implement this for those commands too. A practical use for this with "branch" is e.g. finding branches which were branched off between v2.8.0 and v2.10.0: git branch --contains v2.8.0 --no-contains v2.10.0 The "describe" command also has a --contains option, but its semantics are unrelated to what tag/branch/for-each-ref use --contains for. A --no-contains option for "describe" wouldn't make any sense, other than being exactly equivalent to not supplying --contains at all, which would be confusing at best. Add a --without option to "tag" as an alias for --no-contains, for consistency with --with and --contains. The --with option is undocumented, and possibly the only user of it is Junio (<xmqqefy71iej.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>). But it's trivial to support, so let's do that. The additions to the the test suite are inverse copies of the corresponding --contains tests. With this change --no-contains for tag, branch & for-each-ref is just as well tested as the existing --contains option. In addition to those tests, add a test for "tag" which asserts that --no-contains won't find tree/blob tags, which is slightly unintuitive, but consistent with how --contains works & is documented. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-03-23ref-filter: add test for --contains on a non-commitÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Change the tag test suite to test for --contains on a tree & blob. It only accepts commits and will spew out "<object> is a tree, not a commit". It's sufficient to test this just for the "tag" and "branch" commands, because it covers all the machinery shared between "branch" and "for-each-ref". Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-06-17tests: use test_i18n* functions to suppress false positivesVasco Almeida
The test functions test_i18ncmp and test_i18ngrep pretend success if run under GETTEXT_POISON. By using those functions to test output which is correctly marked as translatable, enables one to detect if the strings newly marked for translation are from plumbing output. If they are indeed from plumbing, the test would fail, and the string should be unmarked, since it is not seen by users. Thus, it is productive to not have false positives when running the test under GETTEXT_POISON. This commit replaces normal test functions by their i18n aware variants in use-cases know to be correctly marked for translation, suppressing false positives. Signed-off-by: Vasco Almeida <vascomalmeida@sapo.pt> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-18branch: clean up commit flags after merge-filter walkJeff King
When we run `branch --merged`, we use prepare_revision_walk with the merge-filter marked as UNINTERESTING. Any branch tips that are marked UNINTERESTING after it returns must be ancestors of that commit. As we iterate through the list of refs to show, we check item->commit->object.flags to see whether it was marked. This interacts badly with --verbose, which will do a separate walk to find the ahead/behind information for each branch. There are two bad things that can happen: 1. The ahead/behind walk may get the wrong results, because it can see a bogus UNINTERESTING flag leftover from the merge-filter walk. 2. We may omit some branches if their tips are involved in the ahead/behind traversal of a branch shown earlier. The ahead/behind walk carefully cleans up its commit flags, meaning it may also erase the UNINTERESTING flag that we expect to check later. We can solve this by moving the merge-filter state for each ref into its "struct ref_item" as soon as we finish the merge-filter walk. That fixes (2). Then we are free to clear the commit flags we used in the walk, fixing (1). Note that we actually do away with the matches_merge_filter helper entirely here, and inline it between the revision walk and the flag-clearing. This ensures that nobody accidentally calls it at the wrong time (it is only safe to check in that instant between the setting and clearing of the global flag). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-02-01branch: let branch filters imply --listJeff King
Currently, a branch filter like `--contains`, `--merged`, or `--no-merged` is ignored when we are not in listing mode. For example: git branch --contains=foo bar will create the branch "bar" from the current HEAD, ignoring the `--contains` argument entirely. This is not very helpful. There are two reasonable behaviors for git here: 1. Flag an error; the arguments do not make sense. 2. Implicitly go into `--list` mode This patch chooses the latter, as it is more convenient, and there should not be any ambiguity with attempting to create a branch; using `--contains` and not wanting to list is nonsensical. That leaves the case where an explicit modification option like `-d` is given. We already catch the case where `--list` is given alongside `-d` and flag an error. With this patch, we will also catch the use of `--contains` and other filter options alongside `-d`. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-04-21Add tests for `branch --[no-]merged`Lars Hjemli
Signed-off-by: Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-03-13add test_cmp function for test scriptsJeff King
Many scripts compare actual and expected output using "diff -u". This is nicer than "cmp" because the output shows how the two differ. However, not all versions of diff understand -u, leading to unnecessary test failure. This adds a test_cmp function to the test scripts and switches all "diff -u" invocations to use it. The function uses the contents of "$GIT_TEST_CMP" to compare its arguments; the default is "diff -u". On systems with a less-capable diff, you can do: GIT_TEST_CMP=cmp make test Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-11-23git-branch --contains: doc and testJunio C Hamano
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>