Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > +test_expect_success 'am with failing applypatch-msg hook (no verify)' ' > + rm -fr .git/rebase-apply && > + git reset --hard && > + git checkout first && > + test_hook applypatch-msg <<-\EOF && > + exit 1 > + EOF > + git am --no-verify patch1 > +' > + > test_expect_success 'am with pre-applypatch hook' ' > rm -fr .git/rebase-apply && > git reset --hard && > @@ -374,6 +384,16 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook' ' > test_cmp_rev first HEAD > ' > > +test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook (no verify)' ' > + rm -fr .git/rebase-apply && > + git reset --hard && > + git checkout first && > + test_hook pre-applypatch <<-\EOF && > + exit 1 > + EOF > + git am --no-verify patch1 > +' > + > test_expect_success 'am with post-applypatch hook' ' > rm -fr .git/rebase-apply && > git reset --hard && These two tests will still pass if you change the implementation to run the hook and simply ignore its exit status, but I recall you making a good argument against that alternative implementation ,in comparison to "not running the hook at all". I think these tests should make sure that the hooks did not even run. Perhaps by creating a marker file before running "git am", adding a "rm" that marker file in the hook, and making sure that the marker file still exists after "git am" returns, or something like that.
