| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
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>
|
|
Converts tests between t0050-t3903.
Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz".
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
Brian Gernhardt
Nanako Shiraishi
Stephan Beyer
Junio C Hamano
Carl Worth