From: Brandon Casey <drafnel@xxxxxxxxx>
Some have found the wording of the description to be somewhat ambiguous
with respect to when it is desirable to use test_must_fail instead of
"! <git-command>". Tweak the wording somewhat to hopefully clarify that
it is _because_ test_must_fail can detect segmentation fault that it is
desirable to use it instead of "! <git-command>".
Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
On 07/20/2010 11:38 AM, Jared Hance wrote:
> I think the wording of description of test_must_fail is slightly
> ambiguous. I read it to mean that:
>
> Use test_must_fail only when you are testing to see if git will
> segfault.
I think that is a correct interpretation. But I ask you this:
Are there times when we would _not_ want to test for segfault? :)
> Rather than:
>
> Use test_must_fail to be safe from git segfaults.
>
>
> Perhaps the description should be updated to be a bit more clear?
How about this?
t/README | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/t/README b/t/README
index b906ceb..a830daa 100644
--- a/t/README
+++ b/t/README
@@ -451,8 +451,8 @@ library for your script to use.
- test_must_fail <git-command>
Run a git command and ensure it fails in a controlled way. Use
- this instead of "! <git-command>" to fail when git commands
- segfault.
+ this instead of "! <git-command>" since it will fail when git
+ commands segfault.
- test_might_fail <git-command>
--
1.6.6.2
--
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