Re: [PATCH 1/2] mingw: verify that paths are not mistaken for remote nicknames

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: May 29, 2017, 21:02 UTC
Message-ID: <34029b29-9f65-78c0-c2ed-649b179a79ac@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <CACBZZX5BgVbUFEwQjHqJVfHFUitTJRaCx-Lg+j7q54uErEpqcg@mail.gmail.com>

Am 29.05.2017 um 22:40 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
>> diff --git a/t/t5580-clone-push-unc.sh b/t/t5580-clone-push-unc.sh
>> index b195f71ea9..fd719a209e 100755
>> --- a/t/t5580-clone-push-unc.sh
>> +++ b/t/t5580-clone-push-unc.sh
>> @@ -1,13 +1,19 @@
>>   #!/bin/sh
>>
>> -test_description='various UNC path tests (Windows-only)'
>> +test_description='various Windows-only path tests'
>>   . ./test-lib.sh
>>
>>   if ! test_have_prereq MINGW; then
>> -       skip_all='skipping UNC path tests, requires Windows'
>> +       skip_all='skipping Windows-only path tests'
>>          test_done
>>   fi
>>
>> +test_expect_failure 'remote nick cannot contain backslashes' '
>> +       BACKSLASHED="$(pwd | tr / \\\\)" &&
>> +       git ls-remote "$BACKSLASHED" >out 2>err &&
>> +       ! grep "unable to access" err
>> +'
> 
> Doesn't this need test_i18ngrep?:

Good catch! It would be this one in warn_on_inaccessible:

>      wrapper.c:581:  warning_errno(_("unable to access '%s'"), path);

But actually, I'm more worried about the unholy mix of one-test-first-then-skip_all-later that occurs in this test script (I do not mean the skip_all that is visible in the context, there are others later). I think there was some buzz recently that prove only understands a summary line that reads "1..0", but here we would see "1..1". What to do? Reorganize the test script? Dscho, any ideas?

-- Hannes