null output from test script matches anything
Bug #637830 reported by
Martin Pool
This bug affects 1 person
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bazaar |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Martin Pool |
Bug Description
This passes:
$ echo foo
""")
I don't think it should. If you don't care about the output of the command, you should say '...'.
It's pretty confusing if you write that, expect it to fail, and it doesn't.
Related branches
lp:~mbp/bzr/scripts
- John A Meinel: Approve
- Vincent Ladeuil: Needs Fixing
-
Diff: 582 lines (+167/-86)11 files modifiedNEWS (+4/-0)
bzrlib/commands.py (+6/-1)
bzrlib/tests/__init__.py (+4/-0)
bzrlib/tests/blackbox/test_bound_branches.py (+3/-0)
bzrlib/tests/blackbox/test_dpush.py (+2/-0)
bzrlib/tests/blackbox/test_shelve.py (+8/-0)
bzrlib/tests/script.py (+18/-8)
bzrlib/tests/test_conflicts.py (+73/-73)
bzrlib/tests/test_delta.py (+1/-2)
bzrlib/tests/test_script.py (+42/-2)
doc/developers/testing.txt (+6/-0)
Changed in bzr: | |
assignee: | nobody → Martin Pool (mbp) |
status: | Confirmed → In Progress |
Changed in bzr: | |
milestone: | none → 2.3b3 |
status: | In Progress → Fix Released |
Changed in bzr: | |
milestone: | 2.3b3 → 2.3b4 |
To post a comment you must log in.
OK, fixed in the attached branch.
This is going to put on a slight extra burden that you need to think about commands that may produce output, and if we change a command that is initially silent to produce output, we may need to update a bunch of tests. However I think this is much safer than not letting people check things actually are silent.