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>
The test 'creating too deep nesting' can fail even when cloning the repos,
but is not its main purpose (it has to prepare nested repos and ensure
the last one is invalid). So split the test into the creation and
invalidity checking parts.
Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This uses "git-apply --whitespace=strip" to fix whitespace errors that have
crept in to our source files over time. There are a few files that need
to have trailing whitespaces (most notably, test vectors). The results
still passes the test, and build result in Documentation/ area is unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This reverts commit 9b088c4e39.
Protecting 'mature' objects does not make it any safer. We should
admit that git-prune is inherently unsafe when run in parallel with
other operations without involving unwarranted locking overhead,
and with the latest git, even rebase and reset would not immediately
create crufts anyway.
This option gives grace period to objects that are unreachable
from the refs from getting pruned.
The default value is 24 hours and may be changed using
gc.prunegrace.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Lederhofer <matled@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The intention of the test seems to be to build a long chain of
clones that locally borrow objects from their parents and see the
system give up dereferencing long chains. There were two problems:
(1) it did not test the right repository;
(2) it did not build a chain long enough to trigger the limitation.
I do not think it is a good test to make sure the limitation the
current implementation happens to have still exists, but that is
a topic at a totally different level.
At least this fixes the broken test.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The only visible change is that git-blame doesn't understand
"--compability" anymore, but it does accept "--compatibility" instead,
which is already documented.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
