On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:57:33PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > While we're at it, let's make the "kill" process a little > > more robust. Specifically: > > > > 1. Wrap the "kill" in a test_when_finished, since we want > > to clean up the process whether the test succeeds or not. > > > > 2. The "kill" is part of our && chain for test success. It > > probably won't fail, but it can if the process has > > expired before we manage to kill it. So let's mark it > > as OK to fail. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Actually, my (2) above is unlikely to trigger, since the test would have > > to hang for 100 seconds first, which probably means it is failing > > anyway. But I did run across it when I screwed up my fix. > > That is actually how the tests distinguish between success and > failure. Any idea about a better way? Ah. I was trying not to look too hard at how the tests actually work, so I completely missed that. Yes, if the "kill" is part of the actual test, then it should stay in the test. We can also put in a test_when_finished to kill it should the test fail to make it that far. If the cleanup one does an extra kill, it shouldn't be a big deal. > I was in the process of writing a commit message for the same "exec" > trick, but I'm glad you got to it first. ;-) I don't know why I didn't think of it sooner. :) > > Also, is it just me, or does it seem weird that test_when_finished > > blocks failing can produce test failure? I would think you would be able > > to put any old cleanup crap into them and not care whether it worked or > > not. > > I'm generally happy that it catches mistakes in cleanup code, but I > could easily be convinced to change it anyway. I don't think it's a big deal. It just surprised me. > Maybe it would be good to factor out a helper to make future > improvements a little easier, like so: > > -- 8< -- > Subject: t0081: introduce helper to fill a pipe in the background > > The fill_input function generates a fifo and runs a command to write > to it and wait a while. The intended use is to test programs that > need to be able to cope with input of limited length without relying > on EOF or SIGPIPE to detect its end. Yeah, that looks much nicer. Do you want to just re-roll that on top of what's in 'master', with the "exec" magic and the defensive test_when_finished in it (or as a separate patch on top if you want to split the refactor and fix)? Feel free to borrow from my commit message. -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