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 D1A891F4B4 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 20:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727902AbgIOUfz (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:35:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54831 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727857AbgIOUfl (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:35:41 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A222749EB; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:34:57 -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=tZQMlP3Zbp+p7C7u0+4q0hrFxDw=; b=hQrA61 RpbA5H3GmszW0pF9/8BzATT4nkXQupof+0o9Zuqhy9h3tiRADgr2OwqGgkOTpt9s 8ftvVn/fxKUWmsvxBG9PWSgvUJTOHi1Rle3BWBu3Kw+lXJSHGfGDbweRgXxT/v94 Cz0p4FcSesSbZSRGO5CfD3TS+Co1VPqMLmFZY= 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=Zev2BKmP+dxk5AgPRQWqQ37pe3hK+Hna MqKAml/qUENunu1Rdc/fWMIsFIvnSObUSHSpeZsJp0TwG30OP/F0B+C6OHpCbYdy ax0ySTb5HEmC4fhJfCH26vwPnaI2/hKpiwXx3mTsE1iVSn5034OHB2LsI78UNeQw PtKyWUaPsCU= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41625749EA; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:34:57 -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-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4174749E9; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:34:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Han Xin Cc: Git List , Han Xin , Jiang Xin Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t5534: new test case for atomic signed push References: <20200915095827.52047-1-hanxin.hx@alibaba-inc.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:34:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200915095827.52047-1-hanxin.hx@alibaba-inc.com> (Han Xin's message of "Tue, 15 Sep 2020 17:58:26 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EB0084BE-F792-11EA-B905-01D9BED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Han Xin writes: > + cat >expect <<-EOF && > + error: atomic push failed for ref refs/heads/noff. status: 2 > + error: failed to push some refs to '"'"'dst'"'"' > + EOF > + test_i18ncmp expect actual Another thing I forgot to say. This expects the exact phrasing of error message to stay the same, which is not really desirable. We might want to start quoting `refs/heads/noff` in the message like other messages often do, for example, and this test will have to match. If you expect that the failure is not due to GPG (i.e. the updated code in 2/2 wants to fail before asking GPG to do anything), why not grep for what your "Fake gpg" says in the error output and make sure that message does not appear? That would make this test a lot more robust, I suspect. > +' > + > test_done