On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:24:21 +0100, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Frans Klaver wrote:
--- a/t/t0061-run-command.sh
+++ b/t/t0061-run-command.sh
@@ -76,12 +76,12 @@ test_expect_success POSIXPERM 'run_command reports
EACCES, interpreter fails' '
grep "bad interpreter" err
'
-test_expect_failure POSIXPERM 'run_command reports ENOENT,
interpreter' '
+test_expect_success POSIXPERM 'run_command reports ENOENT,
interpreter' '
cat non-existing-interpreter >hello.sh &&
chmod +x hello.sh &&
test_must_fail test-run-command start-command-ENOENT ./hello.sh 2>err
&&
- grep "error: cannot exec.*hello.sh" err &&
+ grep "fatal: cannot exec.*hello.sh" err &&
Thanks. I'd suggest using "test_expect_code" rather than the detailed
wording of the message, since that is what scripts might want to rely
on.
OK, makes sense.
What happens on Windows?
I didn't plan anything to happen on windows. Doesn't POSIXPERM rule that
OS out? I guess it could use similar code to this patch series to tackle
all this.
--
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