Hi Martin On 07/06/2025 13:56, Martin Ågren wrote:
Hi Phillip, On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 at 11:45, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] This range-diff matches what I'd expect. Now this test makes sure we really pick up the `-p`. On that note ... I just realized that all of these would keep the test passing: test_write_lines s y n | git stash -p file # what you have test_write_lines s y n | git stash -p file otherfile test_write_lines s y n | git stash -p . test_write_lines s y n | git stash -p So the implementation under test could bungle the pathspec, query the user for both `file` and `otherfile` (in that order!), get EOF from stdin while handling `otherfile`, leave it out of the stash, and end up passing the test. We could try to protect against this by providing another "y": if git wants to read something after our "s y n" sequence, we'll give it a "y" in the hopes that it will trip things up. We do want to test the handling of pathspecs here, so maybe tighten this?
Junio has merged this to next now. I was hoping that we would already have coverage for this with other tests but I couldn't see anything so I'll look at improving the coverage for "git stash push -p <pathspec>" in the next release cycle.
Thanks Phillip
