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>
dcommit uses rebase to sync the history with what has just been pushed to
SVN. Trying to dcommit with a dirty index is troublesome for rebase, so now
the user will get an error message if he attempts to dcommit with a dirty
index.
Signed-off-by: Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr>
Acked-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Our revision number sent to SVN is set to the last revision we
committed if we've made any previous commits in a dcommit
invocation.
Although our SVN Editor code uses the delta of two (old) trees
to generate information to send upstream, it'll still send
complete resultant files upstream; even if the tree they're
based against is out-of-date.
The combination of sending a file that does not include the
latest changes, but set with a revision number of a commit we
just made will cause SVN to accept the resultant file even if it
was generated against an old tree.
More trouble was caused when fixing this because we were
rebasing uncessarily at times. We used git-diff-tree to check
the imported SVN revision against our HEAD, not the last tree we
committed to SVN. The unnecessary rebasing caused merge commits
upstream to SVN to fail.
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
