Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Am 29.05.2017 um 22:40 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/t/t5580-clone-push-unc.sh b/t/t5580-clone-push-unc.sh
>>> index b195f71ea9..fd719a209e 100755
>>> --- a/t/t5580-clone-push-unc.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t5580-clone-push-unc.sh
>>> @@ -1,13 +1,19 @@
>>> #!/bin/sh
>>>
>>> -test_description='various UNC path tests (Windows-only)'
>>> +test_description='various Windows-only path tests'
>>> . ./test-lib.sh
>>>
>>> if ! test_have_prereq MINGW; then
>>> - skip_all='skipping UNC path tests, requires Windows'
>>> + skip_all='skipping Windows-only path tests'
>>> test_done
>>> fi
>>>
>>> +test_expect_failure 'remote nick cannot contain backslashes' '
>>> + BACKSLASHED="$(pwd | tr / \\\\)" &&
>>> + git ls-remote "$BACKSLASHED" >out 2>err &&
>>> + ! grep "unable to access" err
>>> +'
>>
>> Doesn't this need test_i18ngrep?:
>
> Good catch! It would be this one in warn_on_inaccessible:
>
>> wrapper.c:581: warning_errno(_("unable to access '%s'"), path);
>
> But actually, I'm more worried about the unholy mix of
> one-test-first-then-skip_all-later that occurs in this test script (I
> do not mean the skip_all that is visible in the context, there are
> others later). I think there was some buzz recently that prove only
> understands a summary line that reads "1..0", but here we would see
> "1..1". What to do? Reorganize the test script? Dscho, any ideas?
Put this new test after the other skip_all/test_done and you'd be
fine, I think. It should come after the "setup" test anyway, no?