summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t4113-apply-ending.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2008-07-13t/: Use "test_must_fail git" instead of "! git"Libravatar Stephan Beyer1-2/+2
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 Hamano1-4/+4
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 Hamano1-5/+5
This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2006-05-24apply: force matching at the beginning.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+19
When there is no leading context, the patch must match at the beginning of preimage; otherwise there is a "patch adds these lines while the other lines were added to the original file" conflict. This is the opposite of match_end fix earlier in this series. Unlike matching at the end case, we can additionally check the preimage line number recorded in the patch, so the change is not symmetrical with the earlier one. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-05-24Add a test-case for git-apply trying to add an ending lineLibravatar Catalin Marinas1-0/+35
git-apply adding an ending line doesn't seem to fail if the ending line is already present in the patched file. Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>