Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 5/9] remote set-head: better output for --auto

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:56:23 +0900

"Bence Ferdinandy" <[email-masked]> writes:

> Since this particular test just wants to test what happens if
> `refs_update_symref_extended` returns with 1 and not testing correct behaviour
> of backends and such, would it be acceptable if this particular test case would
> check for the backend and if it is reftables it will just pass without actually
> checking and do the manually locking thing above for the files backend?

I think we have some pre-made test prerequisite to skip tests unless
run with a particular ref backend, exactly for that.  Perhaps

    test_expect_success REFFILES 'block update to check error' '
	... manually block update and see how the operation
	... errors out
    '

or something?