Hi Eric, Eric Bavier <bav...@posteo.net> skribis:
> The purpose of d89343 was to ease visual parsing of the tests. I mentioned > having used the '!' syntax in my own shell tests, but I realize now that I > was not relying on `set -e` like guix is. > > I'll consider a few options. Neat. I guess we could have a ‘lib.sh’ with an ‘expect_fail’ function or something. > Do we have a known issue where this is causing a test to not to catch > a failure? No; I noticed it while writing a new test that I expected to fail. Thanks for your feedback! Shell semantics are definitely weird. :-) Ludo’.
