Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests: make test_must_fail fail on missing commands

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

 



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).

-Peff
--
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]