From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A8C1F9FD for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:54:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231770AbhCRVxm (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:53:42 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:41588 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230368AbhCRVxW (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:53:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 1515 invoked by uid 109); 18 Mar 2021 21:53:21 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:53:21 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 25416 invoked by uid 111); 18 Mar 2021 21:53:22 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:53:22 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:53:20 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Son Luong Ngoc , Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com, jonathantanmy@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] t: annotate !PTHREADS tests with !FAIL_PREREQS Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:17:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > In short, the biggest mistake in the current FAIL_PREREQS design is > to hook into test_have_prereq while the stated objective only needs > to futz with the prerequisite given to the test_expect_* functions, > I would think. Yeah, that matches my intuition of the problem, too. -Peff