On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:50:03PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Actually, I think this might be a bit more sensible approach. > > -- >8 -- > tests: allow optional clean-up phrase to expect_success/failure > > When one test modifies the state of the test repository that the later > tests may depend on, you may want to add a clean-up action that is run > regardless of the outcome of the main part of the test. > > This can now be specified as the third parameter to test_expect_success > and test_expect_failure functions. I think your heart is in the right place with this patch, but I doubt that it is going to be all that productive in practice. Most tests consist of a long list of commands, and cleaning up properly after every possible failure case is going to be a lot of work. And worse, since the tests generally _don't_ fail, you have no way to test that your cleanup is reasonable. So I think we will end up in the case where a few failed tests will properly clean themselves up and let further tests proceed, but most failures will leave a big question. In other words, what problem have we solved? If tests N and N+k both fail, would you, even with this patch, suspect N+k of actually failing, or would you first go and debug test N? Is that any different than what you do now? -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
