Junio C Hamano wrote:
Mark Mentovai <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
+ git checkout -- data.txt &&
This should be a no-op, right? What are we testing here?
This syncs the executable bit to the working tree.
I found it useful when developing the test, but it's probably not strictly
necessary as the test is intentionally independent of the executable bit
in the local filesystem. I can drop this if you think it's unnecessary.
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'git apply --reverse restores file modes' '
+ test_config core.fileMode false &&
+ echo true >tool.sh &&
I we took the above approach to prepare patches in separate files,
we do not have to set up a different scenario completely anew.
Instead, we can start from a state where data.txt is missing, and
then reverse-apply the remove patch we used in the previous test
first (and make sure the mode is without executable bit), then
reverse-apply the chmod-x patch (and make sure the file is now
executable), and then reverse-apply the creatoin patch (to ensure it
is gone).
The file that I deleted at the end of the previous (apply "forward") test
was not executable. It's important that this (apply --reverse) test begin
by reversing a delete of an executable file. That was the reason I built
up a second, separate set of patches to apply: I wanted to give better
coverage to git-apply setting the executable bit when it creates a file,
whether it's in the forward direction or reversing a deletion, because
that's the harder case (and the one which wasn't working correctly, and
which prompted this patch).
If you like that better, I could achieve this with yet another mode
transition, but that would produce a stack of 4 patches that would need to
be applied in each direction, or 12 operations in total (4 to create, 4 to
apply forward, and 4 to apply in reverse). Or I can keep the existing
structure, which is still 12 operations in total (3 to create, 3 to apply
forward, 3 more to create, and finally 3 to apply in reverse). On the
balance, I chose to keep the tests more isolated, but I'm happy to revise
if that's what you prefer.
I'll also integrate the rest of your feedback, and Kristoffer's. Thanks!
