Re: [PATCH] t/README: clarify test_must_fail description
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:49:09
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · [PATCH] t/README: clarify test_must_fail description · Brandon Casey <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] t/README: clarify test_must_fail description · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] t/README: clarify test_must_fail description · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] t/README: clarify test_must_fail description · Jonathan Nieder <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] t/README: clarify test_must_fail description · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <hidden>
Brandon Casey [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
From: Brandon Casey <redacted> Some have found the wording of the description to be somewhat ambiguous with respect to when it is desirable to use test_must_fail instead of "! <git-command>". Tweak the wording somewhat to hopefully clarify that it is _because_ test_must_fail can detect segmentation fault that it is desirable to use it instead of "! <git-command>". Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <redacted> --- On 07/20/2010 11:38 AM, Jared Hance wrote:quoted
I think the wording of description of test_must_fail is slightly ambiguous. I read it to mean that: Use test_must_fail only when you are testing to see if git will segfault.I think that is a correct interpretation. But I ask you this: Are there times when we would _not_ want to test for segfault? :)quoted
Rather than: Use test_must_fail to be safe from git segfaults. Perhaps the description should be updated to be a bit more clear?How about this? t/README | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/t/README b/t/README index b906ceb..a830daa 100644 --- a/t/README +++ b/t/README@@ -451,8 +451,8 @@ library for your script to use. - test_must_fail <git-command> Run a git command and ensure it fails in a controlled way. Use - this instead of "! <git-command>" to fail when git commands - segfault. + this instead of "! <git-command>" since it will fail when git + commands segfault.
I found your earlier
Use test_must_fail instead of "! <git-command>" since test_must_fail
will fail when <git-command> segfaults.
slightly clearer.
- "it" in "since it will fail" is a bit ambiguous: is it "!" or
"test_must_fail"?
- it is not obvious if "fail" in "since it will fail" is a good thing or
a bad thing; as we are discussing test_MUST_fail, it may even be a good
thing that it "will fail"---which is not what we want our audience to
read from this.
How about being more explicit?
Run a git command and ensure it fails in a controlled way. Use
this instead of "! <git-command>". When git-command dies due to a
segfault, test_must_fail diagnoses it as an error; "! <git-command>"
treats it as just another expected failure. letting such a bug go
unnoticed.
- test_might_fail <git-command> -- 1.6.6.2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html