On 9/12/2021 6:17 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 12 2021, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> +# NEEDSWORK: This documents current behavior, but is not a desirable >> +# behavior (untracked files are handled differently than tracked). > > I wonder if a test_expect_failure test would be better for the thing > that is the desired behavior, but maybe we don't know what the CLI UI > for that would look like yet. The problem with test_expect_failure is that you don't know which line of the test is the problem. That's probably all fine and good when we completely understand the situation we want to solve but don't have a good approach to fixing it, but here I want to document a change in behavior. Using test_expect_success allows me to demonstrate "it works this way now" and then "this is how behavior changes". >> +test_expect_success 'add outside sparse cone' ' >> + init_repos && >> + >> + run_on_sparse mkdir folder1 && >> + run_on_sparse ../edit-contents folder1/a && >> + run_on_sparse ../edit-contents folder1/newfile && >> + test_sparse_match test_must_fail git add folder1/a && >> + test_i18ngrep "Disable or modify the sparsity rules" sparse-checkout-err && > > Just "grep" is preferred over "test_i18ngrep" now, the GETTEXT_POISON > went away. Right. Force of habit. Thanks, -Stolee
