On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 02:42:02PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Am 29.04.20 um 21:50 schrieb Taylor Blau:
> >> This comment has nothing to do with your series, but I am curious if you
> >> are planning on touching 'test_might_fail' at all. These can be useful
> >> for non-Git commands, too, such as 'test_might_fail umask 022' on
> >> systems that may or may not do something sensible with umask.
> >
> > When it's not a git command that might fail, the idiom is
> >
> > ... &&
> > { umask 022 || :; } &&
> > ...
> >
> > -- Hannes
>
> I hoped to find this documented in t/README, but ended up writing
> this. Overkill? I dunno.
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] t/README: document when not to use test_might_fail
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> t/README | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/README b/t/README
> index 13747f1344..870950c7d1 100644
> --- a/t/README
> +++ b/t/README
> @@ -875,7 +875,9 @@ library for your script to use.
> - test_might_fail [<options>] <git-command>
>
> Similar to test_must_fail, but tolerate success, too. Use this
> - instead of "<git-command> || :" to catch failures due to segv.
> + instead of "<git-command> || :" to catch failures due to segv,
> + but do use "{ <non-git-command> || :; }" to ignore a failure from
> + a command that is not git.
Hmm. I say this as somebody who just re-rolled a series to add two
'test_might_fail umask 022' lines, so am a little disappointed to learn
that this is not considered to be idiomatic.
To me this seems a little overkill, but it may not be on environments
where an extra subshell incurred by 'test_might_fail' might be overly
expensive.
Junio: do you want another reroll of that series? :/
> Accepts the same options as test_must_fail.
Thanks,
Taylor
