From: Jon Seymour Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 03:37:31 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: make test_must_fail more verbose Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20100831155636.GA11530@sigill.intra.peff.net> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Jeff King wrote: > Because test_must_fail fails when a command succeeds, the > command frequently does not produce any output (since, after > all, it thought it was succeeding). So let's have > test_must_fail itself report that a problem occurred. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King Jeff, Nice fix - thank you! It is nice to see that my initial sloppiness inspired a thoughtful remediation. I'll try not to rely of gitters being always so helpful :-) jon. > --- >  t/test-lib.sh |   10 +++++++++- >  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh > index 3a3d4c4..285bfd8 100644 > --- a/t/test-lib.sh > +++ b/t/test-lib.sh > @@ -591,7 +591,15 @@ test_path_is_missing () { > >  test_must_fail () { >        "$@" > -       test $? -gt 0 -a $? -le 129 -o $? -gt 192 > +       exit_code=$? > +       if test $exit_code = 0; then > +               echo >&2 "test_must_fail: command succeeded: $*" > +               return 1 > +       elif test $exit_code -gt 129 -a $exit_code -le 192; then > +               echo >&2 "test_must_fail: died by signal: $*" > +               return 1 > +       fi > +       return 0 >  } > >  # Similar to test_must_fail, but tolerates success, too.  This is > -- > 1.7.2.2.119.gf9c33 > >