On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:35:36AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> -- >8 -- >> Subject: SQUASH??? >> >> Make sure the test does not depend on the result of the previous >> tests; with MINGW prerequisite satisfied, a "reset to original and >> rebuild" in an earlier test was skipped, resulting in different >> history being tested with this and the next tests. > > Yeah, this looks good, and obviously correct. > > I do wonder if in general it should be the responsibility of skippable > tests to make sure we end up with the same state whether they are run or > not. That might manage the complexity more. But I certainly don't mind > tests being defensive like you have here. > > -Peff
That seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure how you would implement it in practice? Would we just "rely" on a skipable test having a "do this if we skip, instead" block? That would be easier to spot but I think still relies on the skip-able tests being careful? Thanks, Jake
