On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:21:22AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

> Jeff King wrote:
> > [...]
> So, you're saying: don't test compound statements for failure, since
> anything in the chain could fail and propagate failure.  I should only
> test simple git-foo commands for failure?


> > Sometimes it's annoyingly verbose to break down a compound function. But
> > I think in this case, you can make your tests more robust by just
> > checking the affirmative that the ref is still where we expect it to be,
> > like:
> >
> >   check_push_result up_repo $the_first_commit heads/master
> Doesn't that change the meaning of the test though?  I really like how
> the original tests read.

Does it? I thought the original was:

  test_must_fail check_push_result up_repo $the_commit heads/master

which is checking that we did _not_ push $the_commit to up_repo.
Checking that without a negative means confirming that what _used_ to be
there is still there, which is $the_first_commit.

But I didn't actually run it, so I might be wrong about what is supposed
to be there after the (lack of) push.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to