Re: [PATCH 1/2] t/t6300: introduce test_bad_atom()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> +test_bad_atom tag 'taggeremail:localpart trim' \
>> +	'fatal: unrecognized %(taggeremail) argument:  trim'
>
> It is strange to see double SP before 'trim' in this error message.
> Are we etching a code mistake in stone here?  Wouldn't the error
> message say "...argument: localpart trim" instead, perhaps?

I tried.  The fatal message does say ...argument: localpart trim" as
I suspected, when you ask for 'taggeremail:localpart trim'.

I think I know what is going on.  With the [PATCH 1/2] as-is, this
piece does not pass.  But because the error message from parsing
gets broken by [PATCH 2/2], after applying [PATCH 2/2], the error
message will become what the above test expects, hiding the new
breakage in the code.  And it probably was not noticed before you
sent the patches, because you did not test [PATCH 1/2] alone.







[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux