On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 2:00 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Kyle Lippincott <spectral@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> Do we only expect failure because of a temporary condition (the bug > >> that is mentioned in the commit message)? If so, we should probably > >> add a TODO, FIXME, or some other similar style of comment that > >> describes that this should be fixed. > > > > test_expect_failure is description enough for that purpose. > > We say this in t/README: > > - test_expect_failure [<prereq>] <message> <script> > > This is NOT the opposite of test_expect_success, but is used > to mark a test that demonstrates a known breakage. Unlike > the usual test_expect_success tests, which say "ok" on > success and "FAIL" on failure, this will say "FIXED" on > success and "still broken" on failure. Failures from these > tests won't cause -i (immediate) to stop. Got it, thanks for explaining. With that, this change looks good to me. > > Which means that when somebody rans out of things to do, grepping > for test_expect_failure may give them a good place to start ;-). > > Note that there were a few very rare occasions that what was marked > as "known breakage" with test_expect_failure turned out to be what > was working as intended. > > Thanks.
