Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: make test_must_fail more verbose

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

 



On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 03:37, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Because test_must_fail fails when a command succeeds, the
>> command frequently does not produce any output (since, after
>> all, it thought it was succeeding). So let's have
>> test_must_fail itself report that a problem occurred.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Nice fix - thank you!
>
> It is nice to see that my initial sloppiness inspired a thoughtful
> remediation. I'll try not to rely of gitters being always so helpful
> :-)

FWIW I plan to make this sort of thing better for everything when I
pick up my "WIP: Report intra-test progress with TAP subtests" series
again. I.e. use >&5 instead of >&2 and turn this sort of thing into
subtests.

But if you're interested in picking up someone else's slack it could
use some help :) I don't know when I'll get around to fixing it up:
http://github.com/avar/git/commit/e2ac35a8e49ceec98ca512bf106ce04c93c84b5c
--
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]