RE: [PATCH] t1800: correct test to handle Cygwin

[<rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On September 7, 2022 4:49 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
>>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git hook run a hook with a bad
>shebang' '
>>>  	# TODO: We should emit the same (or at least a more similar)
>>>  	# error on Windows and !Windows. See the OS-specific code in
>>>  	# start_command()
>>> -	if test_have_prereq !WINDOWS
>>> +	if test_have_prereq !MINGW
>>
>> ... this to be `test_have_prereq !WINDOWS || test_have_prereq CYGWIN`
>> instead.
>
>My understanding is that there are CYGWIN and MINGW prereqs that are
>mutually exclusive (if you are on MINGW you cannot be on CYGWIN and vice
>versa), and WINDOWS is a short-hand for "we are either on MINGW or CYGWIN",
>and I am not sure if it clarifies anything to rewrite "we do not want to be on
>MINGW to run these tests" to "anything non Windows is fine, by the way,
>CYGWIN is also OK".
>
>If we are planning to add another variant that falls into umbrella WINDOWS that is
>not CYGWIN, and that new variant falls short of the requirement of the tests in
>this script just like MINGW does, then the suggested rewrite does make quite a lot
>of sense.  There would be not just two but more variants in Windows family, and if
>Cygwin is the odd man out, then the rewritten one would convey that more
>clearly.  But with only two, as long as everybody understands what MINGW is, I
>think "this part does not work on MINGW" is more concise and clear.
>
>As Đoàn Trần Công Danh pointed out, the TODO: comment may need to be
>updated.  For future-proofing, perhaps "a more similar) error on all platforms."
>would be appropriate.

I think this is the same as I reported under [BUG] t1800: Fails for error text comparison, which somehow Outlook associated with a different thread. NonStop has the same issue with error messages not being consistent across platforms.

-Randall