Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Caught a typo here, sending this as a squash patch since it's already in
>> next:
>
> The breakage and the fix looks obvious to me, but...
>
> How did CI allow 'next' to pass with such a typo, I wonder?
> Moreover, my pre-push tests of all the integration branches
> I didn't notice this to fail, but I cannot see how it could
> have been succeeded. Puzzled...
That is because of this:
$ (sh t7900-maintenance.sh 2>&1; echo $?) | tail -5
ok 25 - register preserves existing strategy
t7900-maintenance.sh: line 444: test_execpt_success: command not found
# passed all 25 test(s)
1..25
0
The story is the same with prove.
$ prove t7900-maintenance-sh
t7900-maintenance.sh .. 24/? t7900-maintenance.sh: line 444: test_execpt_success: command not found
t7900-maintenance.sh .. ok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=25, 2 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.97 cusr 0.97 csys = 1.97 CPU)
Result: PASS
Since this typo appeared immediately before test_done, we _could_
improve test_done to pay attention to $? when it starts (and in a
similar fashion, we _could_ also check $? at the beginning of the
test_expect_* for the previous step), but I do not think that is a
good approach that would scale well. There are legitimate reasons
we have to write things other than test_expect_* at the top level
of the script (e.g. test helper function may have to be defined to
be shared amongst the test pieces in the same script).
I wonder if it is a good direction to go to run the tests with the
"set -e" option on, and accept its peculiarities.
