1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-05 00:37:55 +01:00
Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Stefan Beller
b0afc02649 checkout test: enable test with complex relative path
This test was added, commented out, in fed1b5ca (git-checkout: Test
for relative path use, 2007-11-09).  Later git's path handling was
improved (d089ebaa, setup: sanitize absolute and funny paths in
get_pathspec(), 2008-01-28) but we forgot to enable the now-working
test.

This test expects to run from a subdirectory, so add a 'cd'.  While
we're here, examine the content of the checked-out file instead of
just checking that it exists.  The other checkout tests already do the
same.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <stefanbeller@googlemail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
2013-10-09 12:49:55 -07:00
Junio C Hamano
7435982102 tests: introduce test_must_fail
When we expect a git command to notice and signal errors, we
carelessly wrote in our tests:

    test_expect_success 'reject bogus request' '
        do something &&
        do something else &&
        ! git command
    '

but a non-zero exit could come from the "git command" segfaulting.

A new helper function "tset_must_fail" is introduced and it is
meant to be used to make sure the command gracefully fails (iow,
dying and exiting with non zero status is counted as a failure
to "gracefully fail").  The above example should be written as:

    test_expect_success 'reject bogus request' '
        do something &&
        do something else &&
        test_must_fail git command
    '

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-29 00:00:29 -08:00
Junio C Hamano
41ac414ea2 Sane use of test_expect_failure
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>
2008-02-01 20:49:34 -08:00
David Symonds
fed1b5cac0 git-checkout: Test for relative path use.
Signed-off-by: David Symonds <dsymonds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-11-11 17:00:08 -08:00