Am 07.05.2015 um 19:06 schrieb Paul Tan:
Hi Dscho,
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 2015-05-07 10:44, Paul Tan wrote:
@@ -32,4 +35,18 @@ test_expect_success pull '
)
'
+test_expect_failure '--log=1 limits shortlog length' '
+(
+ cd cloned &&
+ git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
+ test `cat afile` = original &&
+ test `cat bfile` = added &&
+ git pull --log &&
+ git log -3 &&
+ git cat-file commit HEAD >result &&
+ grep Dollar result &&
+ ! grep "second commit" result
+)
I think it might be better to use `test_must_fail` here, just for
consistency (the `!` operator would also pass if `grep` itself could not
be executed correctly, quite academic, I know, given that `grep` is
exercised plenty of times by the test suite, but still...)
What do you think?
Yep, it's definitely better. Sometimes I forget about the existence of
some test utility functions :-/.
Nope, it's not better. test_must_fail is explicitly only for git
invocations. We do not expect 'grep' to segfault or something.
Cf. eg.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/258725/focus=258752
-- Hannes
--
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