On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:56:22 -0400, Jeff King wrote: > do we really care about code 128, or just failure? test_must_fail might be a better choice Good point - `test_must_fail` is probably fine here. I went with an explicit error code so this test wouldn't pass in the event of an outright crash, but I'm happy to adjust for v2. > I didn't even know we had test_debug. ;) The last time somebody added a call to it was in 2012. I think it's being used as intended here, but I'm not sure that the clutter to the test is worth it (we have other tools like "-i" to stop at the right spot and let you inspect the broken state). Frankly I'd forgotten I'd included it! It's definitely not necessary. Will remove for v2 as well. > the backslash escapes confused me for a moment. I guess they are trying to hide the dashes from grep's option parser. That's OK, though I'd have probably just started with "bare" since we're matching a substring anyway. I think you could also use "-e" with test_i18ngrep. Adding `-e` would solve this handily. Thanks for the suggestion! Sean Barag
