Re: [PATCH] t7900: fix host-dependent behaviour when testing git-maintenance(1)

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 06:33:41AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

> We have recently added a new test to t7900 that exercises whether
> git-maintenance(1) fails as expected when the "schedule.lock" file
> exists. The test depends on whether or not the host has the required
> executables present to schedule maintenance tasks in the first place,
> like systemd or launchctl -- if not, the test fails with an unrelated
> error before even checking for the lock file. This fails for example in
> our CI systems, where macOS images do not have launchctl available.
> 
> Fix this issue by creating a stub systemctl(1) binary and using the
> systemd scheduler.

Thanks, this explanation makes sense and clears up the CI issues I saw.

>  test_expect_success 'maintenance aborts with existing lock file' '
> -	test_when_finished "rm -rf repo" &&
> +	test_when_finished "rm -rf repo script" &&
> +	mkdir script &&
> +	write_script script/systemctl <<-\EOF &&
> +	true
> +	EOF
> +
>  	git init repo &&
>  	: >repo/.git/objects/schedule.lock &&
> -	test_must_fail git -C repo maintenance start 2>err &&
> +	test_must_fail env PATH="$PWD/script:$PATH" git -C repo maintenance start --scheduler=systemd 2>err &&
>  	test_grep "Another scheduled git-maintenance(1) process seems to be running" err
>  '

As always, I am never sure whether to use $PWD or $(pwd) for the benefit
of Windows. But digging up this message:

  https://lore.kernel.org/git/2b69d098-92ef-77b0-367a-516e9edbe257@kdbg.org/

I think $PWD is right here.

-Peff