| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite
of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests
run a series of commands that leads to the single command that
needs to be tested, like this:
test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' '
setup1 &&
setup2 &&
setup3 &&
what is to be tested
'
And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the
point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to
succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are
trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to
check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which
is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands.
This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to
use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is
tested, like this:
test_expect_success 'test title' '
setup1 &&
setup2 &&
setup3 &&
! this command should fail
'
test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that
that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it
currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a
file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can
write a test like this:
test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' '
rm -f bar &&
git foo &&
test -f bar
'
This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead
of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the
outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken".
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
