From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670D9C433F5 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 10:12:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231727AbiCCKND (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2022 05:13:03 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33252 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229815AbiCCKNC (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2022 05:13:02 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37FAF1768C0 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id qa43so9453518ejc.12 for ; Thu, 03 Mar 2022 02:12:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=u25e7tevOyof9hTyRePsORsbvVdJirp7PedqPNtqfL8=; b=MhnmQqsENraCjpxsf1798Bc0UEboZf5K3CVvBHcQxd/kYTuSLjlq8hwVRrBK1tUO0S QuNofTKRKQSiBf+IB3nl3RkBX4sIeYsn/dIhz4wNosm8f54pt/6jFSxYahXI2ZrfCepX q7cgKaQuVmBFh6eWy3wU6XEiL2HX0nf65SqAutRRvwbJnNdgWZZMuyByQ0scNiERE2DT vvZYImY43hibW/CH1QVH95PJ/peOCa+sZbM6g2Sk2rBHuZeTyJGUZA8P/Cee0VG9woxz mscMm+rAGK3i1tVwrrnrnMOSSp6H1u0VcebUad6HOlLDLevU018pEpAc1iquJpaWm9R2 v/kA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=u25e7tevOyof9hTyRePsORsbvVdJirp7PedqPNtqfL8=; b=UEcvh1caqLCJiN6FCulggd68EhkdHghEeJGqTuRkL+c2mHpXzoSW4BoJBmju9H+6QY FSR3TGJHO3EU5nKOrmegBl6FHLk9SV/WKXNT/dI3BIIT/sYRQ8ywjRNLNmaumrn6JeXe LewBajGIJEkDUDR/GHBxGP/lr0qNF4URQU4TyWmCt0M5kQHjNlLumC8JHM8MsQv36FzH l9Fr21SXMBjImrptsz5P04eQeNx7Ge/S0aAXnMf4hdxNWuBXZSKW+4edXMfcidk/mY4h mZrqcz7oxJAS7XSR97ZaIG83rzkH1M5dX0pD5WRafYKKvra+zitcEsn6aWhM5A/CVeYZ A+eA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530hE2v6VmEg3jDihR7RiowsQvogVbskO4IYmPXJV5IBNG5vLz04 9sYQ7rpWnBKSypjaLCcxv/Mqp/NAInCGmg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzdq6L3YgNHzQNPjCTSO4rVGJ2E3aoVN32EgKfxmnpbRpB/DbBgSjJufGjtX+sqbgTsTozGiA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:60cf:b0:6da:95de:3920 with SMTP id hv15-20020a17090760cf00b006da95de3920mr1023479ejc.95.1646302335473; Thu, 03 Mar 2022 02:12:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmgdl (j120189.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.120.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m7-20020aa7c487000000b00413a99bf3a3sm677648edq.56.2022.03.03.02.12.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Mar 2022 02:12:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from avar by gmgdl with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1nPiRR-000PO4-Jx; Thu, 03 Mar 2022 11:12:13 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Shubham Mishra , Christian Couder , Taylor Blau Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] rev-list tests: don't hide abort() in "test_expect_failure" Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 11:10:11 +0100 References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.6.10 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <220303.86k0db5oqq.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 02 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > >> Change a couple of uses of "test_expect_failure" to use a >> "test_expect_success" to positively assert the current behavior, and >> replace the intent of "test_expect_failure" with a "TODO" comment int >> the description. >> >> As noted in [1] the "test_expect_failure" feature is overly eager to > > And noted in [2], it is not a good idea to abuse "test_expect_success" > for this purpose, either, though. > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq4k9kj15p.fsf@gitster.g/ As noted I do have a "test_todo" (or "test_expect_todo") replacement for "test_expect_failure" which I think I think will address your concern there. But do you mind if this is left like this for now? Due to the semantics of "test_expect_failure" we can't use it in conjunction with "test_must_fail" currently and not hide segfaults or abort(). So having it marked as "ok ... # TODO" v.s. "not ok ... # TODO" isn't ideal, but certainly better than silently hiding abort() and segfaults.