Tanay Abhra <tanay...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/28/2014 4:52 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Tanay Abhra <tanay...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> +test_expect_success 'check line errors for malformed values' '
>>> +   mv .git/config .git/config.old &&
>>> +   test_when_finished "mv .git/config.old .git/config" &&
>>> +   cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
>>> +   [alias]
>>> +           br
>>> +   EOF
>>> +   test_expect_code 128 git br 2>result &&
>>> +   grep "fatal: bad config file line 2 in .git/config" result
>>> +'
>> This is PATCH 4, and it tests a bug fixed in PATCH 1. It would have
>> eased review to group both patches, either
>> PATCH 1: introduce test_expect_failure test to demonstrate the failure
> Didn't Junio comment that he wouldn't recommend inserting a 
> test_expect_failure
> for new tests and then flipping them after in the series.

No, he even said it was good practice:


his point was to avoid breaking something and repairing in another patch
(which your initial series was doing because the test patch was coming
between "rewrite git_config() to use the config-set API" and "add line
number and file name info to `config_set`").

The situation is different when you have a pre-existing bug.

Matthieu Moy
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