Am Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:21:10 -0700 schrieb Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > Henning Schild <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Valid values are already covered by all tests that use GPG, now also > > test what happens if we go for an invalid one. > > > > Signed-off-by: Henning Schild <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > t/t7510-signed-commit.sh | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh > > index 6e2015ed9..cb523513f 100755 > > --- a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh > > +++ b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh > > @@ -227,4 +227,14 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'log.showsignature > > behaves like --show-signature' ' grep "gpg: Good signature" actual > > ' > > > > +test_expect_success GPG 'check gpg config for malformed values' ' > > + mv .git/config .git/config.old && > > + test_when_finished "mv .git/config.old .git/config" && > > Hmmmmm. > > Is the damage caused by throwing a bad value at gpg.format designed > to be so severe that "test_when_finished test_unconfig ..." cannot > recover from? This test script is not about how "git config" is > implemented and works, so it would be a good idea for it to be even > oblivious to the fact that .git/config is the file being mucked with > when we do "git config". > > I have a suspicion that you can just use test_config (which would > arrange "test_when_finished test_unconfig ..." for free). > > > + git config gpg.format malformed && > > + test_expect_code 128 git commit -S --amend -m "fail" > > 2>result && > > Is this 128 something we document and have users rely on? Or should > we rather say > > test_must_fail git commit ... > > here instead? This is basically an adopted copy of t1308 'check line errors for malformed values'. I will have a look at test_config. Henning > > + test_i18ngrep "malformed value for gpg.format: malformed" > > result && > > + test_i18ngrep "fatal: .*\.git/config" result && > > + test_i18ngrep "fatal: .*line 2" result > > +' > > + > > test_done
