From: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:12:01 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] run-command: Error out if interpreter not found
Message-ID: <op.v8moybu10aolir@keputer>
In-Reply-To: <20120124232421.GH8222@burratino>

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:24:21 +0100, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Frans Klaver wrote:
>
>> --- a/t/t0061-run-command.sh
>> +++ b/t/t0061-run-command.sh
>> @@ -76,12 +76,12 @@ test_expect_success POSIXPERM 'run_command reports  
>> EACCES, interpreter fails' '
>>  	grep "bad interpreter" err
>>  '
>>
>> -test_expect_failure POSIXPERM 'run_command reports ENOENT,  
>> interpreter' '
>> +test_expect_success POSIXPERM 'run_command reports ENOENT,  
>> interpreter' '
>>  	cat non-existing-interpreter >hello.sh &&
>>  	chmod +x hello.sh &&
>>  	test_must_fail test-run-command start-command-ENOENT ./hello.sh 2>err  
>> &&
>>
>> -	grep "error: cannot exec.*hello.sh" err &&
>> +	grep "fatal: cannot exec.*hello.sh" err &&
>
> Thanks.  I'd suggest using "test_expect_code" rather than the detailed
> wording of the message, since that is what scripts might want to rely
> on.

OK, makes sense.


> What happens on Windows?

I didn't plan anything to happen on windows. Doesn't POSIXPERM rule that  
OS out? I guess it could use similar code to this patch series to tackle  
all this.