On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 27.01.15 23:20, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> How about extending it like this (not tested)? > Thanks, this looks good: the test is more extensive, > I can test this next week. > >> >> -- >8 -- >> From: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> >> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:39:01 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: set prerequisite SANITY by testing what we really need >> >> What we wanted out of the SANITY precondition is that the filesystem >> behaves sensibly with permission bits settings. >> >> - You should not be able to remove a file in a read-only directory, >> >> - You should not be able to tell if a file in a directory exists if >> the directory lacks read or execute permission bits. Forgot one thing. I do not offhand know if tests that needs SANITY depends on this, but we may also want to check for this: - You should not be able to write to a file that is marked as read-only. by adding something like >sanitytest && chmod -w sanitytest && ! echo boo >sanitytest && ! test -s sanitytest" in the mix. >> >> We used to cheat by approximating that condition with "is the / >> writable?" test and/or "are we running as root?" test. Neither test >> is sufficient or appropriate in more exotic environments like >> Cygwin. > How about going this direction: > > We used to cheat by approximating that condition with "is the / > writable?" test and/or "are we running as root?" test. Neither test > is sufficient or appropriate, especially in environments like > Cygwin, Mingw or Mac OS X. OK, but MacOS X does not have SANITY problem; "is the / writable?" test was misdetecting and declaring a system with SANITY does not have one. Perhaps roll Cygwin and Mingw into a single Windows category? I dunno. -- 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