On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:17:28PM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote:

> > For an operation like "git branch foo origin" where setting up the
> > tracking is a side effect, a warning makes sense. But the sole purpose
> > of the command above is to set the upstream, and we didn't do it; should
> > this warning actually be upgraded to an error?
> I agree. I originally wrote the test using test_expect_failure--imagine my
> surprise when the exit status was 0, despite the fact that the upstream wasn't
> set!

For reference, you don't want test_expect_failure here; it is about "we
want this to succeed, but git is currently buggy and we know it, so mark
it as a failing test". You want test_must_fail to indicate a command
inside a test that must exit non-zero:

  test_expect_success 'pointing upstream to itself fails' '
          test_must_fail git branch -u ...

I notice that the warning comes from install_branch_config, which gets
used both for "branch -u", but also in the "side effect" case I
mentioned above. Is it possible to trigger this as part of such a case?
I think maybe "git branch -f --track foo foo" would do it. If so, we
should perhaps include a test that it does not break if we upgrade the
"-u" case to an error.

> Patch is on the way, just waiting for the tests to complete. Thanks
> for pointing that out! Also, sorry if it's in the Makefile somewhere,
> but is there an easy way to run just a single test file in the t
> directory?

You can run "./tXXXX-....sh" explicitly.

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