From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests: make test_must_fail fail on missing commands Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:08:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20100831180847.GC15020@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20100831155457.GB11014@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20100831155652.GB11530@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20100831172657.GP2315@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jon Seymour , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 31 20:08:35 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqVG7-0006zE-2b for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:08:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754580Ab0HaSIa (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:08:30 -0400 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:38898 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754569Ab0HaSIa (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:08:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 29450 invoked by uid 111); 31 Aug 2010 18:08:29 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:08:29 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:08:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100831172657.GP2315@burratino> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:26:57PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > The point of it is to run a command that produces failure. A > > missing command is more likely an error in the test script > > Makes sense. Here's the corresponding change for test_might_fail. I think this is probably worth doing. Unless somebody is doing something silly like: test_might_fail command_that_might_exist But that seems a pretty contrived scenario (I am imagining something like "call sync now, but if we don't have it, don't fail". But in the test scripts that seems unlikely). -Peff