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 52C411F4B4 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 20:45:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727817AbgIPUpV (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:45:21 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:58412 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726749AbgIPRD0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:03:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 24817 invoked by uid 109); 16 Sep 2020 16:36:18 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:36:18 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 29564 invoked by uid 111); 16 Sep 2020 16:36:18 -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; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 12:36:18 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 12:36:17 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Sean Barag Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitgitgadget@gmail.com, gitster@pobox.com, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, stolee@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] clone: add tests for --template and some disallowed option pairs Message-ID: <20200916163617.GC17726@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20200911195622.GB2697399@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200915160943.1253867-1-sean@barag.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200915160943.1253867-1-sean@barag.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:09:44AM -0700, Sean Barag wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:56:22 -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > do we really care about code 128, or just failure? test_must_fail > might be a better choice > > Good point - `test_must_fail` is probably fine here. I went with an > explicit error code so this test wouldn't pass in the event of an > outright crash, but I'm happy to adjust for v2. That's good thinking, but test_must_fail already has you covered; it will complain about any death-by-signal. It wouldn't distinguish between, say exit codes 128 and 1, but 128 is the code used by our die() function, so expecting it isn't very specific anyway. :) -Peff