summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t3020-ls-files-error-unmatch.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2021-10-07ls-files: fix a trivial dir_clear() leakLibravatar Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason1-0/+2
Fix an edge case that was missed when the dir_clear() call was added in eceba532141 (dir: fix problematic API to avoid memory leaks, 2020-08-18), we need to also clean up when we're about to exit with non-zero. That commit says, on the topic of the dir_clear() API and UNLEAK(): [...]two of them clearly thought about leaks since they had an UNLEAK(dir) directive, which to me suggests that the method to free the data was too unclear. I think that 0e5bba53af7 (add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives, 2017-09-08) which added the UNLEAK() makes it clear that that wasn't the case, rather it was the desire to avoid the complexity of freeing the memory at the end of the program. This does add a bit of complexity, but I think it's worth it to just fix these leaks when it's easy in built-ins. It allows them to serve as canaries for underlying APIs that shouldn't be leaking, it encourages us to make those freeing APIs nicer for all their users, and it prevents other leaking regressions by being able to mark the entire test as TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-08-26Merge branch 'sg/t3020-typofix'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
* sg/t3020-typofix: t3020: fix typo in test description
2015-08-20t3020: fix typo in test descriptionLibravatar SZEDER Gábor1-1/+1
Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-10-03t3020 (ls-files-error-unmatch): remove stray '1' from end of fileLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+0
Acked-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-03-20Use test_expect_success for test setupsLibravatar Brian Gernhardt1-3/+5
Several tests did not use test_expect_success for their setup commands. Putting these start commands into the testing framework means both that errors during setup will be caught quickly and that non-error text will be suppressed without -v. Signed-off-by: Brian Gernhardt <brian@gernhardtsoftware.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-03tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t0000 - t3599)Libravatar Nanako Shiraishi1-1/+1
Converts tests between t0050-t3903. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-07-13t/: Use "test_must_fail git" instead of "! git"Libravatar Stephan Beyer1-1/+1
This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git". This is useful to - make sure the test does not fail because of a signal, e.g. SIGSEGV, and - advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests. Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01Sane use of test_expect_failureLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+2
Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-02Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-7/+7
This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2006-02-21git-ls-files: Fix, document, and add test for --error-unmatch option.Libravatar Carl Worth1-0/+27
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>