summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2010-11-09tests: add missing &&Libravatar Jonathan Nieder1-1/+1
Breaks in a test assertion's && chain can potentially hide failures from earlier commands in the chain. Commands intended to fail should be marked with !, test_must_fail, or test_might_fail. The examples in this patch do not require that. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-10-02tests: make all test files executableLibravatar Mark Rada1-0/+0
For consistency with the rest of the test files. Signed-off-by: Mark Rada <marada@uwaterloo.ca> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
2009-08-14Fix "unpack-objects --strict"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+35
When unpack-objects is run under the --strict option, objects that have pointers to other objects are verified for the reachability at the end, by calling check_object() on each of them, and letting check_object to walk the reachable objects from them using fsck_walk() recursively. The function however misunderstands the semantics of fsck_walk() function when it makes a call to it, setting itself as the callback. fsck_walk() expects the callback function to return a non-zero value to signal an error (negative value causes an immediate abort, positive value is still an error but allows further checks on sibling objects) and return zero to signal a success. The function however returned 1 on some non error cases, and to cover up this mistake, complained only when fsck_walk() did not detect any error. To fix this double-bug, make the function return zero on all success cases, and also check for non-zero return from fsck_walk() for an error. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>