test: pin the no-TTY refusal wording the rehearsal hit
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
b38518ee54
commit
531803a8c9
1 changed files with 8 additions and 0 deletions
|
|
@ -824,6 +824,14 @@ RLOG="$CWORK/restore.log"
|
||||||
check "restore: refuses without --force when there is no terminal (#105)" \
|
check "restore: refuses without --force when there is no terminal (#105)" \
|
||||||
2 "refusing to roll work back to snapshot 'authed'" \
|
2 "refusing to roll work back to snapshot 'authed'" \
|
||||||
runbox "$RLOG" restore work authed
|
runbox "$RLOG" restore work authed
|
||||||
|
# The exact no-TTY wording, pinned. This is the regression test for the CI
|
||||||
|
# failure this PR produced: the multi-user rehearsal drives restore unattended
|
||||||
|
# on real Incus, took this refusal, and recorded '(b) restore failed' — a
|
||||||
|
# 40-minute job catching what a 15-second suite should have. box refuses
|
||||||
|
# rather than assuming consent, and it says which of the two ways out applies.
|
||||||
|
check "restore: ...and the refusal names the missing terminal, not a bad usage (#105)" \
|
||||||
|
2 "no terminal to confirm on" \
|
||||||
|
runbox "$CWORK/r-tty.log" restore work authed
|
||||||
# The load-bearing assertion: the refusal actually PREVENTED the rollback.
|
# The load-bearing assertion: the refusal actually PREVENTED the rollback.
|
||||||
# 'grep -q' on an absence, so an empty log passes and a logged restore fails.
|
# 'grep -q' on an absence, so an empty log passes and a logged restore fails.
|
||||||
check "restore: ...and the refusal reached incus with no restore (#105)" 1 "" \
|
check "restore: ...and the refusal reached incus with no restore (#105)" 1 "" \
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue