We can use test_must_fail and test_path_* to avoid some
hand-rolled if statements. This makes the code shorter, and
makes it more obvious when we are breaking the &&-chain.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
@ -56,23 +56,13 @@ test_expect_success 'apply --reject is incompatible with --3way' '
@@ -56,23 +56,13 @@ test_expect_success 'apply --reject is incompatible with --3way' '
test_expect_success 'apply without --reject should fail' '
if git apply patch.1
then
echo "Eh? Why?"
exit 1
fi
test_must_fail git apply patch.1 &&
test_cmp file1 saved.file1
'
test_expect_success 'apply without --reject should fail' '
if git apply --verbose patch.1
then
echo "Eh? Why?"
exit 1
fi
test_must_fail git apply --verbose patch.1 &&
test_cmp file1 saved.file1
'
@ -81,21 +71,11 @@ test_expect_success 'apply with --reject should fail but update the file' '
@@ -81,21 +71,11 @@ test_expect_success 'apply with --reject should fail but update the file' '
cat saved.file1 >file1 &&
rm -f file1.rej file2.rej &&
if git apply --reject patch.1
then
echo "succeeds with --reject?"
exit 1
fi
test_must_fail git apply --reject patch.1 &&
test_cmp file1 expected &&
cat file1.rej &&
if test -f file2.rej
then
echo "file2 should not have been touched"
exit 1
fi
test_path_is_missing file2.rej
'
test_expect_success 'apply with --reject should fail but update the file' '
@ -103,25 +83,12 @@ test_expect_success 'apply with --reject should fail but update the file' '
@@ -103,25 +83,12 @@ test_expect_success 'apply with --reject should fail but update the file' '