Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] commit test: test_set_editor in each test
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 16, 2014, 18:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq4mzkr89c.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20140616174640.GA28126@sirius.local>
Caleb Thompson <caleb@calebthompson.io> writes:
Show 34 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 07:41:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:42:26AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: >> > >> > > [1] It might make sense for test_set_editor, when run from within a >> > > test, to behave more like test_config, and do: >> > > >> > > test_when_finished ' >> > > sane_unset FAKE_EDITOR && >> > > sane_unset EDITOR >> > > ' >> > > >> > > I don't know if there would be fallouts with other test scripts, >> > > though. >> > >> > The default environment for tests is to set EDITOR=: to avoid >> > accidentally triggering interactive cruft and interfering with >> > automated tests, I thought. >> >> Ah, yeah, that would make more sense. >> >> > If the above sane-unset is changed to EDITOR=: then I think that is >> > probably sensible. >> >> I think the trick is that other scripts may be relying on the global >> side-effect, and would need to be fixed up (and it is not always obvious >> which spots will need it; they might fail the tests, or they might start >> silently passing for the wrong reason). > > For this reason, and that the scope of this change has already ballooned, I'd > rather not make this change in this patch if that's alright. > > Caleb Thompson
My comment was not about your series, but "if we were to update test_set_editor, unsetting EDITOR is not the right thing to do".
I do not think it is reasonable to include such a change to test_set_editor in this series.