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: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/254101/focus=254104 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 http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~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
