Re: [PATCH] git: avoid segfault on "git --shallow-file" without a value

Christian Couder <[email protected]> writes:

>> Just being
>> curious, because (1) if there are, this addition belongs there, not
>> here,
> ...
>> and (2) if there aren't, this addition may not be needed, and
>> (3) if there aren't or if the existing coverage is incomplete,
>> perhaps we should give a more complete coverage while at it.
>>
>> With (3), I mean something along the lines of ...
>>
>>         for opt in -C -c --git-dir --work-tree --namespace --config-env
>>         do
>>                 test_expect_success "git $opt without a value" '
>>                         test_must_fail git $opt >actual 2>error &&
>>                         test_line_count 0 actual &&
>>                         test_grep usage error
>>                 '
>>         done
>>
>> I do not mean to say that (3) is my favorite among these three,
>> though.
>
> I am fine with (2) or (3), but they don't seem much better to me than
> the test already in this patch.

I think this is the case between (1) and (2), there is not much
coverage, and there is no coverage specific to "git potty" options.

The 't0041' test is a suitable place if we eventually aim for more
complete coverage such as (3), instead of piecemeal tests, such as
'test --config option with other config-related things in t1300' and
'test --shallow-file option with other shallow-related things in
t????'.  So I think the patch is fine as-is.  I will just leave a
'#leftoverbits' comment here to remind others to consider whether it
is worth extending the test to cover more 'git potty' options for
completeness in the future.

Thanks.