-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 223
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
test/system: add support for no ~/.bash_profile #1404
Conversation
Build failed. ❌ unit-test FAILURE in 8m 27s |
c95e339
to
b9b9dca
Compare
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 7m 07s |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for your contribution!
Purely in terms of code, the change looks alright. However, I am curious about the context. Why do you not have a ~/.bash_profile
? Is it because you are running a Linux distribution which doesn't use ~/.bash_profile
as the start-up file for login shells? Or is it because you reconfigured your own OS to be different?
I am asking because this test is a bit hacky. It's written with the assumption that the host operating system is Fedora or something that uses ~/.bash_profile
. On top of that, as I learnt later, the test suite doesn't use a separate isolated $HOME
different from the user's actual $HOME
, which is dangerous. We should really fix that.
So, I am trying to understand your perspective.
I don't have a |
Signed-off-by: Penn Bauman <[email protected]>
b9b9dca
to
7f13327
Compare
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 6m 43s |
The test "run: Ensure that a login shell is used to invoke the command" assumes
~/.bash_profile
is present the host system and fails without it.