From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:51:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows
Message-ID: <CALkWK0=a0wmUe-rjK8Gg8izc0FdXYzChSrgp+W-JNsECsDf+yA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130328153547.GA3337@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:
> [...]

So, you're saying: don't test compound statements for failure, since
anything in the chain could fail and propagate failure.  I should only
test simple git-foo commands for failure?

> Sometimes it's annoyingly verbose to break down a compound function. But
> I think in this case, you can make your tests more robust by just
> checking the affirmative that the ref is still where we expect it to be,
> like:
>
>   check_push_result up_repo $the_first_commit heads/master

Doesn't that change the meaning of the test though?  I really like how
the original tests read.