Hi,
On 2015-05-13 11:52, Paul Tan wrote:
> diff --git a/t/t7601-merge-pull-config.sh b/t/t7601-merge-pull-config.sh
> index f768c90..cef94e6 100755
> --- a/t/t7601-merge-pull-config.sh
> +++ b/t/t7601-merge-pull-config.sh
> @@ -45,6 +45,14 @@ test_expect_success 'fast-forward pull succeeds
> with "true" in pull.ff' '
> test "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" = "$(git rev-parse c1)"
> '
>
> +test_expect_failure 'pull.ff=true overrides merge.ff=false' '
> + git reset --hard c0 &&
> + test_config merge.ff false &&
> + test_config pull.ff true &&
> + git pull . c1 &&
> + verbose test "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" = "$(git rev-parse c1)"
Given that Junio objected to this "verbose test", maybe you want to remove the "verbose"? Or introduce a `test_assert_equal` of the form
```sh
test_assert_equal () {
test "a$1" = "a$2" || {
echo "$1 != $2" >&2
false
}
}
```
Hmm. Now that I think about it, `test_eq` is probably a better name, still.
For the sake of having better reporting, say, in Continuous Integration (where re-running tests via `sh -x t????-*.sh -i -v` -- as Junio suggested -- is not an option), I agree that it would be good to report the non-matching strings.
Ciao,
Dscho
--
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