On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:09:44AM -0700, Sean Barag wrote: > 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. That's good thinking, but test_must_fail already has you covered; it will complain about any death-by-signal. It wouldn't distinguish between, say exit codes 128 and 1, but 128 is the code used by our die() function, so expecting it isn't very specific anyway. :) -Peff
