Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> index c6cdabf53e..3dd68091bb 100644
> --- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> @@ -636,6 +636,7 @@ test_expect_failure () {
> fi
> fi
> test_finish_
> + return 1
> }
>
> test_expect_success () {
> @@ -656,6 +657,7 @@ test_expect_success () {
> fi
> fi
> test_finish_
> + return 1
> }
>
> # test_external runs external test scripts that provide continuous
Hmph.
This does not catch if the outer expect_success does not catch a
failure in the inner expect_success and signal a failure.
When I asked if this kind of breakage is an easy mistake to catch by
the test lint, I had something along this in mind:
test_expect_success () {
if test -n "$GIT_IN_TEST_EXPECT"
then
BUG caling "$GIT_IN_TEST_EXPECT" inside test_expect_success
fi
GIT_IN_TEST_EXPECT=test_expect_success
... do the 'eval the given test body' thing ..
GIT_IN_TEST_EXPECT=
}
After all, the error is in the outer expect_success in that it
called another one, so it feels more natural that the called inner
expect_success to notice the situation and barf.
Thanks.
