Re: [PATCH] Use test_expect_success for test setups

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mar 20, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Brian Gernhardt <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> Several tests did not use test_expect_success for their setup
>> commands.  Putting these start commands into the testing framework
>> means both that errors during setup will be caught quickly and that
>> non-error text will be suppressed without -v.
> 
> Nice.  Should the one in 4103 be three separate tests?  They seem to be
> preparing the set of test input files and are not expected to fail (unless
> of course you are futzing with diff-tree, but for that we have t4013).

I don't think they need to be.  t4103 was the first one I did and I did it as three tests since it was three separate "blocks".  I had also tried moving the diff-trees closer to where their result is used until I saw how much they were reused.

~~ Brian--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]