On Fri, Apr 23 2021, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:47 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > I see it as the test writer's job to clean up to the extent that >> > > git-symbolic-ref can reset to a sane state. >> > >> > No, it's the job of whoever updates the cleanup routine to make sure >> > that the updated cleanup routine still works just as well as it did in >> > the past. >> >> Sorry, I don't mean to shirk my responsibility. What I mean is: is >> there a way to signal "This test is fubar. Stop further execution of >> test shell script". > > Or, more generally: if a cleanup routine fails, what is the point of > continuing to run the test script? If that happens, the test directory > is an indeterminate state, so the outcome of follow-on test-functions > is indeterminate as well. It's not a cleanup routine that's failing, but potentially the "setup the next test" routine. In this case it's probably best to invert the logic, i.e. to make the tests do: test_when_finished "rm -rf copy" && git clone . copy && <test-logic> Rather than: reset_state && <test-logic> That also makes it more obvious what's setup and what/where tests rely on things carried forward from previous tests. This test is just written in a style that I think it's fair to say wouldn't pass review today. E.g. if you skip the first N tests we do that resetting N times redundantly without any need for it. The pattern of moving state setup & teardown into individual tests is better.
