On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:00:07AM -0600, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 06:10:54PM -0400, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
>
> > +test_expect_failure '--porcelain=bogus with stuff to commit returns ok' '
> > + echo bongo bongo bongo >>file &&
> > + git commit -m next -a --porcelain=bogus
> > +'
>
> Hrm. That seems unexpected to me. Shouldn't it complain about
> --porcelain=bogus?
Pondering more, did you mean:
test_expect_success '--porcelain=bogus complains about format' '
echo bongo bongo bongo >>file &&
test_must_fail git commit -m next -a --porcelain=bogus
'
?
expect_failure is for tests which we _want_ to succeed, but do not yet
(so they get annotated in test results appropriately). expect_success is
for an outcome we expect to happen, but which may involve specific steps
returning failure.
The names are kind of confusing in that regard.
I wonder if just "test_expect" would be a better name for
test_expect_success, and an argument or environment variable to trigger
"we know this is currently broken" rather than having a separate
test_expect_failure function. That's clearly outside the scope of your
series, of course.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
