Re: [PATCH] for-each-repo: do nothing on empty config

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
>> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> I wonder if "false" or "exit 1" would fit the bill.  In any case, a
>>>> comment may help, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> 	test_expect_success 'do nothing and succeed on empty/missing config' '
>>>> 		# if this runs even once, "false" ensures a failure
>>>> 		git for-each-repo --config=bogus.config -- false
>>>> 	'
>>>
>>> I can add a comment, but keep in mind that this example would run the
>>> subcommand as "git false". This isn't intended as an arbitrary script
>>> runner, but a "please run the same Git command on a list of repos".
>>
>> Ah, that is a good point.
>>
>> The comment needs to explain:
>>
>> 	# the command fails if it attempts to run even once because
>> 	# 'git false' does not exist
>>
>> and at that point, it does not have to be spelled 'false'.  It could
>> be 'no-such-git-subcommand' (and I wonder if that makes the comment
>> unnecessary).
>>
>> That reminds me.  If I have ~/bin/git-false and ~/bin on my $PATH,
>> would this test fail to catch breakage?
> 
> Yes, I think $PATH in the test environment starts from the original
> $PATH and modified only by prepending, so my ~/bin/git-false would
> kick in.  We cannot reliably depend on the absence of a subcommand.
> 
> We can instead use
> 
> 	# the whole thing would fail if for-each-ref iterated even
> 	# once, because 'git help --no-such-option' would fail
> 	git for-each-ref --config=<var> -- help --no-such-option
> 
> and I think that would be much more reliable; if an invocation of
> "git help" inside our test suite fails to refer to the "git help"
> from the version of Git being tested, we already have a serious
> problem.