Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: make test_must_fail more verbose
- From
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 1, 2010, 10:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTinU7nV09NMvsZ+u9JCzeDsLqw3gS-7Y=i0Eqk_X@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTi=aGdLj4vRKs8dR64JO=c8eC3SHj0_hkh6Wutaw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 03:37, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 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 <peff@peff.net> > > 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 > :-)
FWIW I plan to make this sort of thing better for everything when I pick up my "WIP: Report intra-test progress with TAP subtests" series again. I.e. use >&5 instead of >&2 and turn this sort of thing into subtests.
But if you're interested in picking up someone else's slack it could use some help :) I don't know when I'll get around to fixing it up: http://github.com/avar/git/commit/e2ac35a8e49ceec98ca512bf106ce04c93c84b5c