From: Phillip Wood Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 12:19:04 GMT Subject: Re: [OUTREACHY][PATCH v1] t7006: Use test_path_is_* functions in test script Message-ID: <0c61c3cc-b6b6-84dc-7e3f-99a41f676e7f@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Hi Joey On 20/10/2020 08:24, Joey S wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Thank you very much for the input and feedback, it's much appreciated. > >> All this text above is useful context for reviewers but appears as part >> of the commit message which is not what you want. If you add notes after >> the `---` line below then they will not end up in the commit message. >> > Understood, thank you. > >>> Modernized the test by replacing 'test -e' instances with >>> test_path_is_file helper functions. >> >> s/Modernized/Modernize/ > Will do in the amended commit next. > >>> - ! test_path_is_file paginated.out >> >> It would be better to replace`! test -e` this with >> `test_path_is_missing` as the modified test will pass if paginated.out >> exists but is not a file. `test_path_is_missing` will print an >> appropriate diagnostic message as well. > > Thank you for the explanation : ) > > After replacing `! test -e` with `! test_path_is_missing paginated.out` however, the changed test cases are failing; > ``` > $ cd t/ && prove t7006-pager.sht7006-pager.sh .. Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) > Failed 3/101 subtests > > Test Summary Report > ------------------- > t7006-pager.sh (Wstat: 256 Tests: 101 Failed: 3) > Failed tests: 7-9 > Non-zero exit status: 1 > Files=1, Tests=101, 5 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.00 sys + 3.49 cusr 0.65 csys = 4.17 CPU) > Result: FAIL > ``` > Is this the behavior I should be expecting? No it's not! As one aspect of this process is to help candidates improve their understanding I'll give you a hint rather than the whole answer. `test -e ` checks whether exists and exits 0 if it does and the shell treats an exit code of 0 as success. `!` inverts the success/failure of the command that follows it. Using that and looking at the definition of test_file_is_missing in t/test-lib-functions.sh see if you can fix the conversion so that the tests pass. If you get stuck do let me know and I'll try and help some more. Best Wishes Phillip >> ...Alternatively, this would fit just fine in a cover letter. Usually >> cover letters are not necessary for single patches (where the patch >> message itself conveys the full message, or a little bit of additional >> context below the triple-dash line is all that's necessary to clarify >> the intent). But, if you want to introduce yourself, a 0/1 cover letter >> is fine, too. > > Will keep this in mind, thank you Taylor. > >>> One thing missed by other commenters: the Developer's Certificate of >>> Origin line - which is what this indicates - should have your "full >>> name". >> >> ... and it must match the authorship. > > Changed, thank you both for catching that. > > Thank you all, > Joey > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, October 19, 2020 7:59 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Emily Shaffer emilyshaffer@google.com writes: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 04:26:07AM +0000, Joey S wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> Hi Joey and welcome. >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: JoeyS jgsal@yahoo.com >>> >>> One thing missed by other commenters: the Developer's Certificate of >>> Origin line - which is what this indicates - should have your "full >>> name". >> >> ... and it must match the authorship. >> >>> So in my case, I sign my patches 'Emily Shaffer >>> emilyshaffer@google.com'. If I'm wrong that's fine, but JoeyS sounds >>> like a name and initial rather than a full name. >> >> Thanks for pointing it out. >> >> If somebody from the "mentoring" group is taking a tally, it might >> not be a bad idea to identify which style and procedure rules are >> often failed to be followed by new contributors so that we can >> figure out ways to make them stand out in our documentation set >> (e.g. Documentation/SubmittingPatches but maybe a separate cheat >> sheet might be worth having). >> >> Thanks. > >