Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

>> I guess I could handle the `ert-test-failed' error signaled by
>> `ert-test-erts-file' when it calls `ert-fail', but is it much better?
>
> I think it's better, because then you reduce the scope to just that one
> error.
>
> The test could also fail for any other reason, including that some form
> couldn't be read, an incorrect erts file, and so on.  We would want such
> things to be flagged, in case they happen.
>
> Does that make sense?  Could you propose an updated patch along these
> lines?

Yes, it makes sense.  I attached a new version that implements your
suggestions.