Re: [PATCH] test: make SYMLINKS prerequisite more robust

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2023, 17:31 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqk00pjuli.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbkm3ppn8.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> I wonder if something like this is in order?
>>
>> I don't have much to contribute on that front, but this is really
>> missing some "why", this worked before, why is it failing now? Do we
>> have any idea.
>
> Your guess is as good as mine.  I do not do Windows.

This morning, I notice that those CI jobs I ran last night that failed with "whoa, windows tests are somehow reporting that symlinks are available but not really" issue the patch in this thread were attempting to address has passed even for branches like 'master' and 'next' that do not yet have it, and it seems to be because you re-run these failed jobs.

Whatever magic you used to fix these failing tests, thanks.

Do you have an insight on why and how these were failing? The patch in this thread was a band-aid without knowing why all of a sudden "ln -s x y && test -h y" started passing (while compat/mingw.c still says readlink() is not supported). If we know that such a breakage is not expected, we can drop this workaroun, which would be great.

Thanks.