This trivial sibling command of test_must_fail added in
fdf1bc48ca (t7006: guard cleanup with test_expect_success, 2010-04-14)
didn't have any tests. Let's add at least a basic one.

Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <redacted>
---

On Fri, Jan 15 2021, Jeff King wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:35:10AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

+test_expect_success 'test_might_fail is like test_must_fail ok=' '
+    ! test_must_fail git version &&
+    ! test_must_fail ok= git version &&
+    test_might_fail git version
+'

The title confuses me. Isn't might_fail like "must_fail ok=success"?

And certainly the code here shows us expecting the _opposite_ of what
"Must_fail ok=" does.

Yes, this made no sense. Here's a sensibe test.

Junio: This is a stand-alone patch now. I'm splitting this off from my
WIP v2 of the "set -o pipefail" series.

 t/t0000-basic.sh | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t0000-basic.sh b/t/t0000-basic.sh
index f4ba2e8c85..efaf7ec4d9 100755
--- a/t/t0000-basic.sh
+++ b/t/t0000-basic.sh

@@ -1326,4 +1326,9 @@ test_expect_success 'test_must_fail rejects a non-git command with env' '
 	grep -F "test_must_fail: only '"'"'git'"'"' is allowed" err
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'test_might_fail is like test_must_fail ok=success' '
+	test_must_fail ok=success git version &&
+	test_might_fail git version
+'
+
 test_done

-- 
2.29.2.222.g5d2a92d10f8