Re: [PATCH] tests: introduce test_unset_prereq, for debugging

SZEDER Gábor writes: >> For convenience, the following two methods are now supported ways to >> pretend that a prereq is not met: >> >> test_set_prereq !GPG >> >> and >> >> test_unset_prereq GPG > > I'm not sure this is the right way to do this. > > I wanted to

Re: [PATCH] tests: introduce test_unset_prereq, for debugging

> While working on the --convert-graft-file test, I missed that I was > relying on the GPG prereq, by using output of test cases that were only > run under that prereq. That GPG vs --convert-graft-file thing really does have a bit of a fallout, doesn't it? I'm at five patches and possibly

Re: [PATCH] tests: introduce test_unset_prereq, for debugging

Johannes Schindelin writes: > While working on the --convert-graft-file test, I missed that I was > relying on the GPG prereq, by using output of test cases that were only > run under that prereq. > > For debugging, it was really convenient to force that prereq to be

[PATCH] tests: introduce test_unset_prereq, for debugging

While working on the --convert-graft-file test, I missed that I was relying on the GPG prereq, by using output of test cases that were only run under that prereq. For debugging, it was really convenient to force that prereq to be unmet, but there was no easy way to do that. So I came up with a