> Le 10 août 2025 à 15:44, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Hi Ben > >> On 10/08/2025 17:03, D. Ben Knoble wrote: >> +test_expect_success 'Using individual editors' ' >> + test_when_finished "test_unconfig --unset-all core.editor" && >> + ( >> + TERM=vt100 && >> + export TERM && >> + for i in $vi EDITOR VISUAL core_editor GIT_EDITOR >> + do >> + sane_unset EDITOR VISUAL GIT_EDITOR && >> + test_might_fail git config --unset-all core.editor && >> + echo "Edited by $i" >expect && >> + case "$i" in >> + core_editor) >> + git config core.editor ./e-core_editor.sh >> + ;; >> + [A-Z]*) >> + eval "$i=./e-$i.sh" && >> + export $i >> + ;; >> + esac && >> + git --exec-path=. commit --amend && > [snip] >> + git show -s --pretty=oneline >show && >> + <show sed -e "s/^[0-9a-f]* //" >actual && >> + test_cmp expect actual > > We need to add "|| return 1" to the last line here and in the test below to reliably error out when test_cmp fails. I'd have thought that our test linting should hove picked this up but maybe it is confused by the subshell AFK for a bit, but didn’t want anyone to think the linter was broken: That’s what I must have lost when rebasing 1/3 from the end of the series to the beginning, good eyes! In fact I believe it’s what CI flagged, since chainlint is what suggested it. I should have run the tests again before sending this set (I’d been running frequently them while working on this file). PS I think it’a actually “exit 1” in this case?
