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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 0BB9F1F66E for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 18:09:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726970AbgHUSJS (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:09:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:61138 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726373AbgHUSJL (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:09:11 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05651E3430; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:09:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=8rXVqFVbKURTw8Iv2apFdIkRsUo=; b=GCatRO jRcyBxjhkNL5JejMrGipFarwXKsWRgvK3byjFvDG0kIVK+VdJfUcBMh9n3PCHgdi wJwby0DPz50mvYoBTyaxW8L129QLi2Cnd+bzZXE/+4f+j9R4esWSdmSNg/PSEut/ Gna6wMPYa4s6aQFDqLsaSwpRNEgMzM4ObUf0Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=uj5QsEwYNjlUfq2xUQkbRpmxmGFWs2fE kQM4DAWPXgs1KYZt7Rzlrs6p2yfOxZiSlMjrWFS2bkV/tuScF1o9waHhRO64e4f6 JvT+duPnUzR0gKitymp2uuJSWe4NXrjGFmu8NN/SWk8AM7NcLJy/nC7VixDRN7Qp hZRwMP7Pww8= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A03E342F; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:09:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B9ADE342C; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:09:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Shourya Shukla Cc: Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, christian.couder@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com, liu.denton@gmail.com, pc44800@gmail.com, stefanbeller@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] submodule: port submodule subcommand 'summary' from shell to C References: <20200821171705.GA16484@konoha> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:09:04 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200821171705.GA16484@konoha> (Shourya Shukla's message of "Fri, 21 Aug 2020 22:47:05 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 66E5BF4A-E3D9-11EA-8D2E-F0EA2EB3C613-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Shourya Shukla writes: >> I think a test that relies on platform-specific error string is a >> bug. It's like expecting an exact string out of strerror(), which >> we had to fix a few times. > >> So I am not sure we would want to butcher compat/mingw.c only to >> match such an expectation by a (buggy) test. > > Alright. That is understandable. What alternative do you suggest? Should > we change the check in the test? A buggy check should of course be changed. It should be sufficient to ensure "git submodule summary" fails, regardless of what exact error message it issues, no? If the command does not exit with non-zero exit status, when it gives a "fatal" error message, that may indicate another bug, though.