ExitWithError() - v files #22613
ExitWithError() - v files #22613
Conversation
fc65e52 to
2b392be
Compare
| @@ -100,7 +100,12 @@ var _ = Describe("Podman volume rm", func() { | |||
|
|
|||
| session = podmanTest.Podman([]string{"volume", "rm", "myv"}) | |||
| session.WaitWithDefaultTimeout() | |||
| Expect(session).To(ExitWithError()) | |||
| expect := "more than one result for volume name myv: volume already exists" | |||
| if podmanTest.DatabaseBackend == "boltdb" { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
libpod/sqlite_state.go line 2188 - change the %s to a %q and you can remove this conditional.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I got my hands slapped last time I touched code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
all I am saying I want a formal decision on what it should be %q vs %s rather than changing each differently, if we aim for consistency (which I agree with of course) we need define what consistency means first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Once all my ExitWithError PRs are merged, I intend to file an issue listing the inconsistencies (boltdb and remote) and calling for a decision.
Followup to containers#22270: wherever possible/practical, extend command error checks to include explicit exit status codes and error strings. This commit handles test/e2e/v*_test.go Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <santiago@redhat.com>
2b392be to
83ee16b
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago, giuseppe, Luap99 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Followup to #22270: wherever possible/practical, extend command
error checks to include explicit exit status codes and error strings.
This commit handles test/e2e/v*_test.go
Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago santiago@redhat.com