From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:08:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests: make test_must_fail fail on missing commands
Message-ID: <20100831180847.GC15020@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100831172657.GP2315@burratino>

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:26:57PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > The point of it is to run a command that produces failure. A
> > missing command is more likely an error in the test script
> 
> Makes sense.  Here's the corresponding change for test_might_fail.

I think this is probably worth doing. Unless somebody is doing something
silly like:

  test_might_fail command_that_might_exist

But that seems a pretty contrived scenario (I am imagining something
like "call sync now, but if we don't have it, don't fail". But in the
test scripts that seems unlikely).

-Peff