From: Anthony Wang <anthonywang513@xxxxxxxxx> On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 7:20 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Anthony Wang <anthonywang513@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The exit code of the upstream in a pipe is suppressed > > thus we lose any exit codes of git commands that are piped. In order to > > ensure we pick up the exit code, we can write the output of the git command > > to a file, testing the exit codes of both the commands. > > Sort of correct, but ... Would it be more correct to say that the shell only returns the exit code of the last command in the pipeline? Then, by writing out the output of the git command to a file, we can test the exit codes of both the commands? If not, I am not quite sure what the additional nuance is in this case. > > > --- > > t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh | 10 ++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Missing sign-off. > > > diff --git a/t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh b/t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh > > index 5ac5383fb7..5abac938d0 100755 > > --- a/t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh > > +++ b/t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh > > @@ -95,9 +95,10 @@ test_expect_success 'two labels on the same changelist' ' > > cd "$git" && > > git p4 sync --import-labels && > > > > - git tag | grep TAG_F1 && > > - git tag | grep -q TAG_F1_1 && > > - git tag | grep -q TAG_F1_2 && > > + git tag >output && > > + grep TAG_F1 output && > > + grep -q TAG_F1_1 output && > > + grep -q TAG_F1_2 output && > > Think what these tests are trying to do. After a "git p4 sync" > operation, they want to ensure that tags TAG_F1_1 and TAG_F1_2 > exist? Does the test want to see a tag "TAG_F1", or is it only that > the test is written in a so sloppy way that grepping for TAG_F1 will > be happy when any one of TAG_F1_1, TAG_F1_2 and TAG_F1_ONLY exists, > making its purpose of verifying that the tags are in the expected > state pretty much useless, and that is the reason why it needs to be > followed up with the two extra tests? I see, it seems I didn't fully consider the goals of the test. It does indeed seem like the test has some redundancies. If I am understanding correctly, the test grepping for TAG_F1 is not even necessary, and it seems like the tests for TAG_F1_1, TAG_F1_2 were added afterwards to ensure that grep TAG_F1 was not passing when TAG_F1_ONLY existed. If this is the case, would it be better to just remove the grep TAG_F1 test and just keep the two tests for TAG_F1_1 and TAG_F1_2? This would simplify the test and make it clearer that we are only interested in the existence of those two tags. > > What is the desired state you want to ensure after "git p4 sync" > operation above? I do not do "git p4", but you may know better than > I do, as you are the one who is patching this test file ;-) I am > guessing that you want TAG_F1_1 and TAG_F1_2 to exist and you do not > want TAG_F1_ONLY to exist? > > If so, instead of grepping around, we should be testing that in a > more direct way, perhaps with something like > > git show-ref --verify refs/tags/TAG_F1_1 && > git show-ref --verify refs/tags/TAG_F1_2 && > test_must_fail git show-ref --verify refs/tags/TAG_F1_ONLY && > > no? > Possibly, but I believe adding the test_must_fail check would be modifying the original intent of the test, as it would pass even with the existence of TAG_F1_ONLY. However, if we are only performing actions to cause TAG_F1_1 and TAG_F1_2 to exist, then it would be an issue if TAG_F1_ONLY existed. My original plan was not to change any test coverage, and to only make small changes following the goals of the microproject, but if you think it would be beneficial to change the test to check for the absence of TAG_F1_ONLY, then I will proceed. > > cd main && > > > > @@ -208,7 +209,8 @@ test_expect_success 'use git config to enable import/export of tags' ' > > git p4 rebase --verbose && > > git p4 submit --verbose && > > git tag && > > - git tag | grep TAG_F1_1 > > + git tag >output && > > + grep TAG_F1_1 output > > ) && > > ( > > cd "$cli" &&
