Re: [NEW] Git

From: Gopal Yadav <gopunop@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2020, 07:18 UTC
Message-ID: <CAAUOv8jraMz3+M_fddwAVcLNGPZehgosvHXyCSUx1u+555LmOA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRF=PXWTgOzxAsMQ=bSUPnsORBKWUTk38BCvMSVzS=KJw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:22 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:23 AM Gopal Yadav <gopunop@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> No. test_lazy_prereq() is merely the function which defines how a lazy
> prerequisites should be determined when the answer about the
> prerequisite is actually needed. What #353 is saying is to not perform
> the actual determination if a test which requires it isn't going to be
> run.
>
> Fixing the issue might be as simple as moving the test_verify_prereq()
> call (and related "export") inside the 'if ! test_skip "$@"'
> conditional in the test_expect_success() and test_expect_failure()
> functions.

I see that test_verify_prereq() (and related export) being used inside 3 different functions namely test_expect_failure(), test_expect_success() and test_external(). So the solution here is to move these into the if ! test_skip block.

Thanks, will submit a patch.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > I know the issue talks about something related to chains but I am
> > thinking of starting by resolving the lazy prereq task first.
>
> I took a look at the &&-chain logic and, as far as I can tell by both
> direct inspection and by experimentation, the detection of broken
> &&-chains is _not_ performed for tests which are being skipped. So, I
> think that portion of #353 is just wrong.