Fix an edge case that was missed when the dir_clear() call was added
in eceba53214 (dir: fix problematic API to avoid memory leaks,
2020-08-18), we need to also clean up when we're about to exit with
non-zero.
That commit says, on the topic of the dir_clear() API and UNLEAK():
[...]two of them clearly thought about leaks since they had an
UNLEAK(dir) directive, which to me suggests that the method to
free the data was too unclear.
I think that 0e5bba53af (add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak
false positives, 2017-09-08) which added the UNLEAK() makes it clear
that that wasn't the case, rather it was the desire to avoid the
complexity of freeing the memory at the end of the program.
This does add a bit of complexity, but I think it's worth it to just
fix these leaks when it's easy in built-ins. It allows them to serve
as canaries for underlying APIs that shouldn't be leaking, it
encourages us to make those freeing APIs nicer for all their users,
and it prevents other leaking regressions by being able to mark the
entire test as TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Several tests did not use test_expect_success for their setup
commands. Putting these start commands into the testing framework
means both that errors during setup will be caught quickly and that
non-error text will be suppressed without -v.
Signed-off-by: Brian Gernhardt <brian@gernhardtsoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning
that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git".
This is useful to
- make sure the test does not fail because of a signal,
e.g. SIGSEGV, and
- advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests.
Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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>
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Junio C Hamano
SZEDER Gábor
Elijah Newren
Brian Gernhardt
Nanako Shiraishi
Stephan Beyer
Carl Worth