Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > While I'm at it, since you pointed out ! instead of test_must_fail, I > wondered if I should change "! test_grep" as well - but when I grep t/ > it looks like it's not usual to use `test_must_fail test_grep`, but > instead to use `test_grep ! <omitted pattern> <file>`. I'll change > that too. "! test_grep" is an anti-pattern. We should have a documentation somewhere in t/README or nearby (if we don't, somebody please add one). The point of test_grep is "when we expect to see hits, we do show them to the standard output even if we just used a bare 'grep', but when such a test fails, we can easily miss the failure, because the failure is signalled only by $? and no output---hence, test_grep helper loudly says that we expected to find something but we did not see any". Using "! test_grep" will make "! grep" louder in a wrong case. That is the whole reason why "test_grep !" exists. > I also wonder - do we want to capture SIGKILL as well? An eternally interesting question is "How would you catch an uncatchable signal?" ;-)
