Johannes Sixt venit, vidit, dixit 13.06.2014 15:21:
> Am 6/13/2014 15:06, schrieb Michael J Gruber:
>> Johannes Sixt venit, vidit, dixit 13.06.2014 14:54:
>>> Am 6/13/2014 14:33, schrieb Michael J Gruber:
>>>> .... with this loop, sorry:
>>>> for X in true false; do
>>>> for Y in false true; do
>>>> ($X && $Y || exit 1)
>>>> echo "$X/last inner $Y: $?"
>>>> true/last inner true: 0
>>>> false/last inner true: 1
>>>> even though on both cases we have at least one failure of Y. (failure of
>>>> one subtest = failure of the test)
>>> Place the loop(s) inside the subshell, and you observe termination on the
>>> first failure, and a failure exit code of the subshell.
>>> The change proposed in this patch should not be necessary. Something else
>>> must be wrong with your tests.
>> I know I started this (or Jeff did, who knows ;) ), but we keep
>> confusing each other more and more:
>>> Ah, here it is:
>>> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'show signatures' '
>>> for commit in merge^2 fourth-unsigned sixth-unsigned
>>> - git show --pretty=short --show-signature $commit
>>> >actual &&
>>> + git show --pretty=short --show-signature $commit
>>> >actual || exit 1
>>> grep "Good signature from" actual && exit 1
>> This is as in the original, it tests invalid signatures, so "Good
>> signature" should not be in the response.
>>> ! grep "BAD signature from" actual || exit 1
>>> echo $commit OK
>>> Notice the '&& exit 1'! It should be '|| exit 1', right?
>>> -- Hannes
>> In other words, the original tests already had
>> grep foo && exit 1
>> ! grep bar || exit 1
>> to test that we have neither foo nor bar. The reason is (supposedly) to
>> have this portion of the test mostly analogous to the previous one,
>> where we want foo and do want bar.
>> So this is completely unrelated.
> I don't think so. What is the outcome of
> false && # simulate a regression
> grep foo && exit 1
> ! grep bar || exit 1
> assuming that the '! grep bar' happens to be true? Answer: The regression
> is not diagnosed because the &&-chain is broken.
> *That* is what I think you described earlier in this thread as "I put
> something failing on the first line of the original version, and the test
> -- Hannes
If you say that something I have said makes sense I'm happy, because I
can't confirm that myself right now. I'll take a break and look into a
rewrite of the form
test_must_fail c &&
d || exit 1
hoping that will make things both readable (by avoiding !) and concise
(by avoiding repeated exits).
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