Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
Matthieu Moy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
+test_config_unchanged () {
+ git config --list --local >original
+ "$@"
+ git config --list --local >modified
+ test_cmp original modified
+}
The test passes if "$@" fails. You should &&-chain the lines here to
catch things like crashes or unexpected "exit 1" in git.
That is true, but allowing "$@" failure may be deliberate.
I don't think so:
+test_expect_success 'pull -u should not work when merging unrelated histories' '
+ git checkout master &&
+ test_config_unchanged test_must_fail git pull -u step_parent master
+'
;-)
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
On 07/06/2016 09:06, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Matthieu Moy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
+test_config_unchanged () {
+ git config --list --local >original
+ "$@"
+ git config --list --local >modified
+ test_cmp original modified
+}
The test passes if "$@" fails. You should &&-chain the lines here to
catch things like crashes or unexpected "exit 1" in git.
That is true, but allowing "$@" failure may be deliberate.
I don't think so:
+test_expect_success 'pull -u should not work when merging unrelated histories' '
+ git checkout master &&
+ test_config_unchanged test_must_fail git pull -u step_parent master
+'
;-)
When writing `test_config_unchanged` procedure, I wanted to return the
comparison even if "$@" failed. But it's indeed not consistent with the
way I wrote the tests.
Adding "&&" between instructions and using `test_must_fail` when calling
the procedure is clearer and more logical.