[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       git
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests: make test_must_fail fail on missing commands
From:       Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab () gmail ! com>
Date:       2010-08-31 18:14:14
Message-ID: AANLkTimpaD7gW56sLqFzHOe+32QkXMOCkpQqJuaZNZav () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 18:08, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:26:57PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>> Jeff King wrote:
>>
>> > The point of it is to run a command that produces failure. A
>> > missing command is more likely an error in the test script
>>
>> Makes sense.  Here's the corresponding change for test_might_fail.
>
> I think this is probably worth doing. Unless somebody is doing something
> silly like:
>
>  test_might_fail command_that_might_exist
>
> But that seems a pretty contrived scenario (I am imagining something
> like "call sync now, but if we don't have it, don't fail". But in the
> test scripts that seems unlikely).

Yes, test_must_fail is only for git commands, not external stuff like
sync, although some naughty people have gone and used it for grep/test
in a few places instead of using "!" it seems.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]