Commit graph

6 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Nanako Shiraishi 3604e7c5c6 tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999)
Converts tests between t3600-t6300.

Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-03 14:13:59 -07:00
Stephan Beyer d492b31caf t/: Use "test_must_fail git" instead of "! git"
This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning
that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git".

This is useful to

 - make sure the test does not fail because of a signal,
   e.g. SIGSEGV, and

 - advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests.

Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-07-13 13:21:26 -07:00
Junio C Hamano 41ac414ea2 Sane use of test_expect_failure
Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite
of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision.  Most tests
run a series of commands that leads to the single command that
needs to be tested, like this:

    test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' '
	setup1 &&
        setup2 &&
        setup3 &&
        what is to be tested
    '

And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the
point of writing tests.  Your setup$N that are supposed to
succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are
trying to test.  The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to
check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which
is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands.

This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to
use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is
tested, like this:

    test_expect_success 'test title' '
	setup1 &&
        setup2 &&
        setup3 &&
        ! this command should fail
    '

test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that
that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it
currently does not pass.  So if git-foo command should create a
file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can
write a test like this:

    test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' '
        rm -f bar &&
        git foo &&
        test -f bar
    '

This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead
of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the
outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken".

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 20:49:34 -08:00
Pavel Roskin 3dff5379bf Assorted typo fixes
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-02-03 21:49:54 -08:00
Yasushi SHOJI ced78b3907 clone: the given repository dir should be relative to $PWD
the repository argument for git-clone should be relative to $PWD
instead of the given target directory.  The old behavior gave us
surprising success and you need a few minute to know why it worked.

GIT_DIR is already exported so no need to cd into $D. And this makes
$PWD for git-fetch-pack, which is the actual command to take the given
repository dir, the same as git-clone.

Signed-off-by: Yasushi SHOJI <yashi@atmark-techno.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-10-14 18:22:04 -07:00
Carl Worth 5508a61663 New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory.
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-21 18:18:25 -08:00