On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> diff --git a/t/t9302-fast-export-tags.sh b/t/t9302-fast-export-tags.sh >> new file mode 100644 > > Make it executable if you need to add a new script, but shouldn't these > small tests be done as an addition to existing t9301, not as a brand new > script? Sure, will do. I just have to figure out how to make it executable in windows ;) As this is my first test, I was wondering a bit about how much I could depend on the state of the repo, so I was a bit reluctant to add it to the same test. But I guess it's easier for everyone in the long term to put it into the same test, so I'll give it a go. >> +test_expect_success 'tree_tag' 'git fast-export tree_tag' >> +test_expect_success 'tree_tag-obj' 'git fast-export tree_tag-obj' >> +test_expect_success 'tag-obj_tag' 'git fast-export tag-obj_tag' >> +test_expect_success 'tag-obj_tag-obj' 'git fast-export tag-obj_tag-obj' >> + >> +test_done > > The purpose of the first patch that adds tests is to expose existing > problems, and it is better to say test_expect_failure in them. Later > patch to fix these issues will contain code change and also change to flip > some of the expect_failure to expect_success, and that way we can see what > issue is fixed with which patch more easily. Sure, will do. I was a bit lazy, but updating it as we go will make stuff easier in the future. > These tests seem to only care about fast-export not dying, but don't we > also want to check if they produce correct results? Well, yeah. But I was working mainly on fixing a crash-bug here, and I don't think I know enough about the correct output of fast-export to pull this off. Perhaps tighting up the test is something someone else would care to do? -- Erik "kusma" Faye-Lund kusmabite@xxxxxxxxx (+47) 986 59 656 -- 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
