Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Let's show the output so it's clear why it failed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > t/t3400-rebase.sh | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/t/t3400-rebase.sh b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
> > index b58fa1a..fb39531 100755
> > --- a/t/t3400-rebase.sh
> > +++ b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
> > @@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ test_expect_success 'default to @{upstream} when upstream arg is missing' '
> > test_expect_success 'rebase -q is quiet' '
> > git checkout -b quiet topic &&
> > git rebase -q master >output.out 2>&1 &&
> > + cat output.out &&
> > test ! -s output.out
> > '
>
> It is one thing to avoid squelching output that naturally comes out
> of command being tested unnecessarily, so that "./txxxx-*.sh -v"
> output can be used for debugging. I however am not sure if adding
> "cat" to random places like this is a productive direction for us to
> go in.
>
> A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
> test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
> places that do "test ! -s <filename>"), perhaps?
>
> test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
> if test -s "$1"
> then
> cat "$1"
> false
> fi
> }
Perhaps, but I'm not interested. I'm tired of obvious fixes getting rejected
for hypothetical "ideal" situations that we'll never reach.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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