kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jeff King	bbf08124e0	fix bsd shell negation On some shells (notably /bin/sh on FreeBSD 6.1), the construct foo && ! bar \| baz is true if foo && baz whereas for most other shells (such as bash) is true if foo && ! baz We can work around this by specifying foo && ! (bar \| baz) which works everywhere. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Jeff King	b4ce54fc61	remove use of "tail -n 1" and "tail -1" The "-n" syntax is not supported by System V versions of tail (which prefer "tail -1"). Unfortunately "tail -1" is not actually POSIX. We had some of both forms in our scripts. Since neither form works everywhere, this patch replaces both with the equivalent sed invocation: sed -ne '$p' Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Junio C Hamano	41ac414ea2	Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test should succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Nicolas Pitre	5f9ffff308	rehabilitate some t5302 tests on 32-bit off_t machines Commit `8ed2fca458` was a bit draconian in skipping certain tests which should be perfectly valid even on platform with a 32-bit off_t. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Johannes Sixt	8ed2fca458	t5302-pack-index: Skip tests of 64-bit offsets if necessary. There are platforms where off_t is not 64 bits wide. In this case many tests are doomed to fail. Let's skip them. Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@telecom.at> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Junio C Hamano	5be60078c9	Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	18 years ago
Shawn O. Pearce	b3431bc603	Don't use seq in tests, not everyone has it For example Mac OS X lacks the seq command. So we cannot use it there. A good old while loop works just as good. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	bd4b0aeb1f	t5302: avoid using tail -c A Large Angry SCM (gitzilla) noticed that on an unnamed platform, tail -c wants its byte count as part of the option, not as a separate argument. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Nicolas Pitre	6e5417769c	tests for various pack index features This is a fairly complete list of tests for various aspects of pack index versions 1 and 2. Tests on index v2 include 32-bit and 64-bit offsets, as well as a nice demonstration of the flawed repacking integrity checks that index version 2 intend to solve over index version 1 with the per object CRC. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago