Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2015, #08; Mon, 23)
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Mar 24, 2015, 20:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqsicu5fl0.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqmw338khu.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 40 quoted lines
> * jk/test-chain-lint (2015-03-22) 28 commits > - t6039: fix broken && chain > - t9158, t9161: fix broken &&-chain in git-svn tests > - t9104: fix test for following larger parents > - t4104: drop hand-rolled error reporting > - t0005: fix broken &&-chains > - t7004: fix embedded single-quotes > - t0050: appease --chain-lint > - t9001: use test_when_finished > - t4117: use modern test_* helpers > - t6034: use modern test_* helpers > - t1301: use modern test_* helpers > - t0020: use modern test_* helpers > - t6030: use modern test_* helpers > - t9502: fix &&-chain breakage > - t7201: fix &&-chain breakage > - t3600: fix &&-chain breakage for setup commands > - t: avoid using ":" for comments > - t: wrap complicated expect_code users in a block > - t: use test_expect_code instead of hand-rolled comparison > - t: use test_might_fail for diff and grep > - t: fix &&-chaining issues around setup which might fail > - t: use test_must_fail instead of hand-rolled blocks > - t: use verbose instead of hand-rolled errors > - t: assume test_cmp produces verbose output > - t: fix trivial &&-chain breakage > - t: fix moderate &&-chain breakage > - t: fix severe &&-chain breakage > - t/test-lib: introduce --chain-lint option > > People often forget to chain the commands in their test together > with &&, leaving a failure from an earlier command in the test go > unnoticed. The new GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT mechanism allows you to > catch such a mistake more easily. > > What I queued here has fix to the issue J6t found in 15/25 squashed > in, and also has 26/25 and 27/25 follow-up fixes from Michael, plus > 28/25 follow-up from Torsten. If everybody involved is happy with > it, we can just proceed with this copy, otherwise I'll let Peff > reroll. I am happy either way.
I'll merge this to 'next' soonish, unless I hear otherwise. I double checked 15/25 (i.e. $feature{"forks"}{"default"} = [1];) so I think we are in good shape.
Thanks.