Re: [PATCH 6/6] merge hook tests: use 'test_must_fail' instead of '!'

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 7, 2014, 00:35 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqk3c6vo9o.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqiorrvwvh.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

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

Show 23 quoted lines

> Benoit Pierre <benoit.pierre@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Benoit Pierre <benoit.pierre@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  t/t7505-prepare-commit-msg-hook.sh | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t7505-prepare-commit-msg-hook.sh b/t/t7505-prepare-commit-msg-hook.sh
>> index 604c06e..1be6cec 100755
>> --- a/t/t7505-prepare-commit-msg-hook.sh
>> +++ b/t/t7505-prepare-commit-msg-hook.sh
>> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ test_expect_success 'with failing hook' '
>>  	head=`git rev-parse HEAD` &&
>>  	echo "more" >> file &&
>>  	git add file &&
>> -	! GIT_EDITOR="\"\$FAKE_EDITOR\"" git commit -c $head
>> +	test_must_fail env GIT_EDITOR="\"\$FAKE_EDITOR\"" git commit -c $head
>
> Thanks. It is good that you avoided the common pitfall of attempting
>
> 	GIT_EDITOR=... test_must_fail git commit -c $head    ;# WRONG
>
> but do we assume everybody has "env"?

It turns out that the answer to this question seems to be "yes, we already do."; so the patch is probably OK as-is.

Thanks.

Show 7 quoted lines

> To be portable, we can do this instead.
>
> 	(
> 		GIT_EDITOR=... &&
>         	export GIT_EDITOR &&
>                 test_must_fail git commit -c $head
> 	)