Skip to content

test: improve pre push hook error handling for new branches #51

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mfranzke
Copy link
Owner

@mfranzke mfranzke commented Jul 30, 2025

Description

We'd like to test our pre-push Git hook.

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation update
  • Performance improvement
  • Code refactoring

Testing

  • Tests pass locally
  • Added tests for new functionality
  • Updated existing tests
  • Manual testing completed

Checklist

  • My code follows the project's style guidelines
  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published

Browser Testing

If applicable, please test in the following browsers:

  • Chrome
  • Firefox
  • Safari
  • Edge

Performance Impact

If this change affects performance:

  • I have run performance benchmarks
  • Performance impact is documented
  • Performance regression is acceptable for the added functionality

Breaking Changes

If this introduces breaking changes, please describe:

Additional Notes

Any additional information that reviewers should know.

@mfranzke mfranzke self-assigned this Jul 30, 2025
@Copilot Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 30, 2025 05:23
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Jul 30, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 2c7e8cb

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

Copy link
Contributor

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds a comprehensive test script for pre-push hook error handling, specifically focusing on scenarios with new branches and various upstream configurations. The test script validates the hook's behavior in three key scenarios: branches without upstream, branches with upstream and package.json changes, and branches with upstream but non-monitored file changes.

Key changes:

  • Added a comprehensive test script with real remote push testing
  • Implemented proper cleanup mechanisms for test branches and files
  • Added validation for hook behavior across different branch and file change scenarios
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

test/test-pre-push-hook-focused.sh:230

  • The error message is misleading - it says 'Aborting tests that require remote push' but the script exits completely on line 231, aborting all tests including the first one that doesn't require remote push.
        log_error "Remote access check failed. Aborting tests that require remote push."

# Backup package.json
cp package.json package.json.backup

# Make initial change and commit
Copy link
Preview

Copilot AI Jul 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The sed command on line 105 is complex and could fail silently. Consider using a more robust approach with proper error handling or a simpler text modification method.

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.

log_success "Successfully established upstream for test branch"

# Make another change to package.json to test hook with existing upstream
sed 's/"Test modification for pre-push hook testing"/"Another test modification for hook testing"/' package.json > package.json.tmp && mv package.json.tmp package.json
Copy link
Preview

Copilot AI Jul 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This sed command assumes the exact text from the previous modification exists. If the first sed command format changes, this will fail silently. Consider using a more robust text replacement method or adding validation.

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Performance Benchmark Results

Metric Value Status
Initialization Time 0.30ms
Avg Processing Time 0.2524ms
Total Processing Time (1000x) 252.40ms ℹ️

✅ All benchmarks passed!

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Performance Benchmark Results

Metric Value Status
Initialization Time 0.40ms
Avg Processing Time 0.2401ms
Total Processing Time (1000x) 240.10ms ℹ️

✅ All benchmarks passed!

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Performance Benchmark Results

Metric Value Status
Initialization Time 0.40ms
Avg Processing Time 0.2635ms
Total Processing Time (1000x) 263.50ms ℹ️

✅ All benchmarks passed!

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Performance Benchmark Results

Metric Value Status
Initialization Time 0.30ms
Avg Processing Time 0.2507ms
Total Processing Time (1000x) 250.70ms ℹ️

✅ All benchmarks passed!

@mfranzke mfranzke changed the title fix: improve pre push hook error handling for new branches test: improve pre push hook error handling for new branches Aug 1, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant