Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > It is unclear as to _why_, but under certain circumstances the warning > about credentials being passed as part of the URL seems to be swallowed > by the `git remote-https` helper in the Windows jobs of Git's CI builds. > > Since it is not actually important how many times Git prints the > warning/error message, as long as it prints it at least once, ... Sorry, but I do not quite see the value of keeping the test to expect success in a weakend form. If we think we are emitting three warnings, whether we do so by mistake or by design, and some of them are lost and not shown for an unknown reason, is there a guarantee that at least one would survive? And when all three are lost, even the test in the weakened form would fail and stop the CI builds, no? If we do not know why we are losing some messages, and if we do not have resources to track down why, that is perfectly fine. Fixes can be prioritised. But wouldn't test_expect_failure be a better way to express "we think we ought to get 3 but for some reason we may not get all of them and we haven't figured it out"?
