[PATCH 3/3] t0000: drop known breakage test

2013-12-28 Thread Jeff King 
Having a simulated known breakage test means that the test
suite will always tell us there is a bug to be fixed, even
though it is only simulated.

The right way to test this is in a sub-test, that can also
check that we provide the correct exit status and output.
Fortunately, we already have such a test (added much later
by 5ebf89e).

We could arguably get rid of the simulated success test
immediately above, as well, as it is also redundant with the
tests added in 5ebf89e. However, it does not have the
annoying behavior of the known breakage test. It may also
be easier to debug if the test suite is truly broken, since
it is not a test-within-a-test, as the later tests are.

Signed-off-by: Jeff King p...@peff.net
---
I am not _that_ bothered by the known breakage, but AFAICT there is
zero benefit to keeping this redundant test. But maybe I am missing
something.

 t/t-basic.sh | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/t/t-basic.sh b/t/t-basic.sh
index e6c5b63..a2bb63c 100755
--- a/t/t-basic.sh
+++ b/t/t-basic.sh
@@ -41,9 +41,6 @@ test_expect_success '.git/objects should have 3 
subdirectories' '
 test_expect_success 'success is reported like this' '
:
 '
-test_expect_failure 'pretend we have a known breakage' '
-   false
-'
 
 run_sub_test_lib_test () {
name=$1 descr=$2 # stdin is the body of the test code
-- 
1.8.5.1.399.g900e7cd
--
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

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t0000: drop known breakage test

2013-12-28 Thread Jonathan Nieder 
Jeff King wrote:

 I am not _that_ bothered by the known breakage, but AFAICT there is
 zero benefit to keeping this redundant test.

Devil's advocate: it ensures that anyone wrapping git's tests (like
the old smoketest infrastructure experiment) is able to handle an
expected failure.

But in practice I don't mind the behavior before or after this patch.
If the test harness is that broken, we'll know.  And people writing
code that wraps git's tests can write their own custom sanity-checks.
--
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

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t0000: drop known breakage test

2013-12-28 Thread Jeff King 
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:51:04PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

 Jeff King wrote:
 
  I am not _that_ bothered by the known breakage, but AFAICT there is
  zero benefit to keeping this redundant test.
 
 Devil's advocate: it ensures that anyone wrapping git's tests (like
 the old smoketest infrastructure experiment) is able to handle an
 expected failure.

Thanks. One of the things I love about open source is that as soon as I
say I can't see how..., the answer is crowd-sourced for me. :)

That being said, even if the test has a non-zero possible value...

 But in practice I don't mind the behavior before or after this patch.
 If the test harness is that broken, we'll know.  And people writing
 code that wraps git's tests can write their own custom sanity-checks.

...I think for these reasons that the value is smaller than the
disruption caused by the test, and the patch is a net win.

-Peff
--
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