Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Let's show the output so it's clear why it failed.

Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <redacted>
---
 t/t3400-rebase.sh | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/t/t3400-rebase.sh b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
index b58fa1a..fb39531 100755
--- a/t/t3400-rebase.sh
+++ b/t/t3400-rebase.sh

@@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ test_expect_success 'default to @{upstream} when upstream arg is missing' '
 test_expect_success 'rebase -q is quiet' '
 	git checkout -b quiet topic &&
 	git rebase -q master >output.out 2>&1 &&
+	cat output.out &&
 	test ! -s output.out
 '

It is one thing to avoid squelching output that naturally comes out
of command being tested unnecessarily, so that "./txxxx-*.sh -v"
output can be used for debugging.  I however am not sure if adding
"cat" to random places like this is a productive direction for us to
go in.

A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
places that do "test ! -s <filename>"), perhaps?

        test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
                if test -s "$1"
                then
                        cat "$1"
                        false
                fi
        }

Perhaps, but I'm not interested. I'm tired of obvious fixes getting rejected
for hypothetical "ideal" situations that we'll never reach.

-- 
Felipe Contreras