From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:58:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests: make test_must_fail fail on missing commands
Message-ID: <7v7hj6d8im.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100831155652.GB11530@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> The point of it is to run a command that produces failure. A
> missing command is more likely an error in the test script
> (e.g., using 'test_must_fail "command with arguments"', or
> relying on a missing command).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
>  t/test-lib.sh |    3 +++
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
> index 285bfd8..dbb13af 100644
> --- a/t/test-lib.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib.sh
> @@ -598,6 +598,9 @@ test_must_fail () {
>  	elif test $exit_code -gt 129 -a $exit_code -le 192; then
>  		echo >&2 "test_must_fail: died by signal: $*"
>  		return 1
> +	elif test $exit_code = 127; then
> +		echo >&2 "test_must_fail: command not found: $*"
> +		return 1
>  	fi

Hmm.  One worry is that if we ever exit(127) ourselves this would be
confused, but hopefully we are not that clueless.