Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > Ok, the change itself looks reasonable to me. One question that the > commit message doesn't answer though is why this didn't cause the test > to fail. Ah yes, I should have pointed that out in the commit message. But as you say, in short it simply skips the tests is if cannot find the .adoc. > [snip] > Which indicates that this prereq is overly loose: ideally we should not > skip such tests, but rather print an error that something is fishy. I > suspect that we have the prereq in place because there are some builtins > that don't have a corresponding manpage though. > > Maybe this is something we could explore: what breaks if we remove the > prereq entirely? And if this breakage is limited to a small number of > builtins we can maybe use an explicit skip-list like we already do with > "t/t0450/adoc-help-mismatches". I think that's a great change we should make on top. Being explicit about which subcommands do not require documentation is better than simply letting them slide through. Every new subcommand would require documentation, and if not so, adding them to a list somewhere makes it clear why. -- Cheers, Toon
