Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] t: prepare execution of potentially failing commands for `set -e`

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 07:34:26 -0700

Jeff King <[email-masked]> writes:

> I'm still concerned that this approach is going to create extra friction
> for test writers down the road. This series needed to clean up several
> spots to avoid false positives, and some of the spots were non-trivial.
>
> Now that was the accumulated cruft of 20 years of test-writing, so it's
> not clear to me how often new test-writers will run into this. But when
> they do, I worry that it may be hard to even figure out what is going
> on.
>
> But I've said as much in earlier rounds, and I'm not sure Junio agrees.
> So we can note my dissent in the captain's log, and I can reserve the
> right to told-you-so later if need be. ;)

The alternatigve to allow us to be sloppy is alluring from the point
of view of a test writer in me.  But do we have an easy/canned way
to run tests and see the unexpected failures outside test_expect_foo
while ignoring all the noises from passing tests?  Perhaps running
tests (with and without prove) while redirecting the standard output
stream to /dev/null or something?