Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] test-lib.sh: Dynamic test for the prerequisite SANITY

From: Torsten Bögershausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:28:56 +0100

On 27.01.15 23:20, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> How about extending it like this (not tested)?
Thanks, this looks good: the test is more extensive,
I can test this next week.

> 
> -- >8 --
> From: Torsten Bögershausen <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:39:01 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: set prerequisite SANITY by testing what we really need
> 
> What we wanted out of the SANITY precondition is that the filesystem
> behaves sensibly with permission bits settings.
> 
>  - You should not be able to remove a file in a read-only directory,
> 
>  - You should not be able to tell if a file in a directory exists if
>    the directory lacks read or execute permission bits.
> 
> We used to cheat by approximating that condition with "is the /
> writable?" test and/or "are we running as root?" test.  Neither test
> is sufficient or appropriate in more exotic environments like
> Cygwin.
How about going this direction:

We used to cheat by approximating that condition with "is the /
writable?" test and/or "are we running as root?" test. Neither test
is sufficient or appropriate, especially in environments like
Cygwin, Mingw or Mac OS X.