Re: [RFC 2/2] exclude-promisor-objects: declare when option is allowed

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Matthew DeVore <matvore@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>  t/t4202-log.sh         | 4 ++++
>  t/t8002-blame.sh       | 4 ++++
>  7 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> ...
> diff --git a/t/t4202-log.sh b/t/t4202-log.sh
> index 153a506151..819c24d10e 100755
> --- a/t/t4202-log.sh
> +++ b/t/t4202-log.sh
> @@ -1703,4 +1703,8 @@ test_expect_success 'log --source paints symmetric ranges' '
>  	test_cmp expect actual
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success '--exclude-promisor-objects does not BUG-crash' '
> +	test_must_fail git log --exclude-promisor-objects source-a
> +'
> +
>  test_done
> diff --git a/t/t8002-blame.sh b/t/t8002-blame.sh
> index 380e1c1054..eea048e52c 100755
> --- a/t/t8002-blame.sh
> +++ b/t/t8002-blame.sh
> @@ -118,4 +118,8 @@ test_expect_success '--no-abbrev works like --abbrev=40' '
>  	check_abbrev 40 --no-abbrev
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success '--exclude-promisor-objects does not BUG-crash' '
> +	test_must_fail git blame --exclude-promisor-objects one
> +'
> +
>  test_done

OK.  We used to be hitting BUG() which is an abort() in disguise, so
must-fail would have caught it without the fix in this patch.  Now
we would see a more controlled failure.

    ... goes and makes sure that is the case ...

Not really.  We were already doing a controlled failure via die(),
so these two tests would not have caught the problem in the code
before the fix in this patch.

But nevertheless this is a good change; I do not think it is worth
grepping for "unrecognized option" to differentiate the two cases.

Thanks.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux