Kyle Meyer <kyle@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > diff --git a/t/t9001-send-email.sh b/t/t9001-send-email.sh > index 01c74b8b07..152bd2c697 100755 > --- a/t/t9001-send-email.sh > +++ b/t/t9001-send-email.sh > @@ -2334,6 +2334,12 @@ test_expect_success $PREREQ 'test that send-email works outside a repo' ' > "$(pwd)/0001-add-main.patch" > ' > > +test_expect_success $PREREQ 'send-email relays -v 3 to format-patch' ' > + test_when_finished "rm -f out" && > + git send-email --dry-run -v 3 -1 >out && > + grep "PATCH v3" out > +' > + > test_expect_success $PREREQ 'test that sendmail config is rejected' ' > test_config sendmail.program sendmail && > test_must_fail git send-email \ > > base-commit: e7e5c6f715b2de7bea0d39c7d2ba887335b40aa0 It seems that this new test, by invoking format-patch, makes a leaks check at GitHub CI fail. https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/3562362890/jobs/5984036422 Dropping PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK from the test script would certainly be a short-term workaround, though, but it is a rather broad mechanism. There should be a better way to control the leak checker, but that is what we currently have X-<.
