Jeff King <> writes:

> I like the general idea, but I'm not sure how this would interact with
> the tests in t0000 that test the test suite.

I tried but gave up adding a new test for this to t0000 ;-)

>>  test_expect_failure () {
>> +    if test "$test_in_progress" = 1
>> +    then
>> +            error "bug in the test script: did you mean test_must_fail 
>> instead of test_expect_failure?"
>> +    fi
> This follows existing practice for things like the &&-lint-checker, and
> bails out on the whole test script.

Yes, you guessed correctly where the above came from.

> That sometimes makes it hard to find
> the problematic test, especially if you're running via something like
> "prove", because it doesn't make valid TAP output.

Yeah, true.

> It might be nicer if we just said "this test is malformed, and therefore
> fails", and then you get all the usual niceties for recording and
> finding the failed test.
> I don't think it would be robust enough to try to propagate the error up
> to the outer test_expect_success block (and anyway, you'd also want to
> know about it in a test_expect_failure block; it's a bug in the test,
> not a known breakage). But perhaps error() could dump some TAP-like
> output with a "virtual" failed test.
> Something like:
> ...
> which lets "make prove" collect the broken test number.
> It would perhaps need to cover the case when $test_count is "0"
> separately. I dunno. It would be nicer still if we could continue
> running other tests in the script, but I think it's impossible to
> robustly jump back to the outer script.
> These kinds of "bug in the test suite" are presumably rare enough that
> the niceties don't matter that much, but I trigger the &&-checker
> reasonably frequently (that and test_line_count, because I can never
> remember the correct invocation).
> Anyway. That's all orthogonal to your patch. I just wondered if we could
> do better, but AFAICT the right way to do better is to hook into
> error(), which means your patch would not have to care exactly how it
> fails.

Yeah, the change to error() may be a good thing to do, but it has
quite a many callers in t/*lib*.sh and definitely deserves to be a
separate patch, not tied to this single test.

Reply via email to