From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E3E63308A for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2024 15:49:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720885742; cv=none; b=aNjU93DTvf82bf7kXeSGHSCM2s7nnVZVQpTo5dZ6c+BIMBKXKNgdXb2Om/MO8kHEG/+vAPDPC6XLcSRoLBtNlo+rKoVG2Ft70GedU1Bbs2RxOmntW6BUzhgQ7/T57H2Iwpjn5Qvm9IAVlWZGfcGQYTodk8l/HLhj00RvApxvfzo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720885742; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SCdLKgSh217BVIRQ2UDVV6SY+XmUBe8WIZyp/IfgyqU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=lXvjOVFYGoT+cCri+Qq/foKP1T7ra1Kh3fd/LcavC4GJFVzIKQuAVG+rMUIDzq6xzViZsOJmTzv5+2ZuM3pvL5PcLh+1Y3/wSE5TPaohnmpT/I0s7GJW4njHOII9j5+vZIi/of4RFgSs3yzuLVyluoUmd8j+27oajK9GQP9R7y0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=FXPRKb4Y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="FXPRKb4Y" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A76E1CBEA; Sat, 13 Jul 2024 11:49:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=SCdLKgSh217BVIRQ2UDVV6SY+XmUBe8WIZyp/I fgyqU=; b=FXPRKb4YBKSE2YeSAdwfCo3sVLuKZM6OtRgkatkOpcbkcldomGnBL7 G7apmVmDVc6VFSJ6lVMt01qqEvBD+I+cAcSdebv2tS2KQWHF2tpY7CkNuRA1PJGU 0iLVcI5Lc3xa6uwkfz9mDCT6oSiMr7V7SqpM2ZoQIBFF13Wou2ncc= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D8F1CBE9; Sat, 13 Jul 2024 11:49:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6791B1CBE8; Sat, 13 Jul 2024 11:48:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe , phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, Git List , Josh Steadmon Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] unit-tests: add TEST_RUN In-Reply-To: <954d67b1-8819-4bfc-ae10-f04beca5419a@gmail.com> (Phillip Wood's message of "Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:27:08 +0100") References: <85b6b8a9-ee5f-42ab-bcbc-49976b30ef33@web.de> <8175f239-8d4e-49f7-ae0d-dba7df8c365d@web.de> <51ebc0fd-ddae-4bdb-a5d6-c92ce8b1f3e6@gmail.com> <97390954-49bc-48c4-bab1-95be10717aca@web.de> <8802b3ab-9986-47bd-be80-51ac599b2892@gmail.com> <6c83357a-825f-49d9-8cc2-e81415e8010d@web.de> <62d221cc-532a-4a6d-8e96-b5a246ddeb1b@web.de> <69ec31f8-2cac-48c3-a513-0f7f21607c88@gmail.com> <954d67b1-8819-4bfc-ae10-f04beca5419a@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:48:58 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6B7D5C18-412F-11EF-B1A3-5B6DE52EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Phillip Wood writes: > On 11/07/2024 16:34, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> So, perhaps test_if_XXXXXX() but it is not quite clear to me when >> TEST_RUN() wants to return true, so I cannot come up with an >> appropriate value to fill the XXXXXX part. If this is about >> honoring GIT_SKIP_TESTS or something similar, then I may suggest >> test_if_enabled(), but that does not seem like it. So... > > TEST_RUN() returns true if the test has not been skipped i.e. the test > should be run. At the moment the only way to skip a test is to call > test_skip_all() in a previous test. In the future I expect we'll add > something like the "--run" option we have for the integration tests. Thanks, so test_if_enabled() is not all that off the mark after all.