Marius Storm-Olsen schrieb: > Johannes Sixt said the following on 09.06.2008 15:37: >> Marius Storm-Olsen schrieb: >>> An LF only conflict file results in the resolved file being in LF, >>> the commit is in LF and a warning saying that LF will be replaced >>> by CRLF, and the working dir ends up with a mix of CRLF and LF files. >> >> After reading these 3 lines I've no idea what you are talking about. Can >> you translate this to English, please? ;-) > > Certainly :-) > It means that if you work on a repo with core.autocrlf == true, you'd > expect every text file to have CRLF EOLs. However, if you by some > operation, get a conflict, then the conflicted file has LF EOLs. > Now, of course you'd go about resolving the files conflict, and then > 'git add <file>'. When you do that, you'll get the warning saying that > LF will be replaced by CRLF. Then you commit. The end result is that you > have a workingdir with a mix of LF and CRLF files, which after some more > operations may trigger a "whole file changed" diff, due to the > workingdir file now having LF EOLs. Aha! Care to write it this way in the commit message in the next round? ;) >>> Sorry, no patch to actually *fix* the problem. >> >> Then you should use test_expect_failure instead of test_expect_success. >> And maybe also mention it in the commit message. > > Well, the test case is written in a way that it *should* pass (iow, it > _expects_ a success), but it currently doesn't. So, the goal is that > someone, who is more intimate with the code, can just run the testcase > until it passes (fixing in between each run, of course ;-) test_expect_failure has changed its meaning. It's now used to say precisly what you describe here. It means: "We should expect this command sequence to complete successfully, but we know that there is a bug in a git command, and hence we must expect failure until it is fixed." Such a test is marked as "still broken", and the test run is not interrupted. If the bug is fixed, the test is marked as "FIXED" until the 'test_expect_failure' is turned into 'test_expect_success'. >>> +test_expect_success 'Check that conflict file is CRLF' ' >>> + git reset --hard a && >>> + ! git merge side && >> >> test_must_fail git merge side && > > Ah, I checked a few other testcases, where I saw the ! construct. I > don't mind changing it, if it's important. Does it add 'feature' to the > testcase by using test_must_fail, instead of '!' ? '! git cmd' says that any unusual exit is ok, even a segfault and incorrect usage. 'test_must_fail git cmd' says that only deliberate error exits are ok. -- Hannes -- 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
