git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] Refactor mechanics of testing in a sub test-lib

From
Adam Spiers <git@adamspiers.org>
Date
Sep 19, 2012, 18:44 UTC
Message-ID
<20120919184406.GC19246@atlantic.linksys.moosehall>
In-Reply-To
<20120919175655.GC11699@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 01:56:55PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 06:15:13PM +0100, Adam Spiers wrote:
> 
> > This will allow us to test the test framework more thoroughly
> > without disrupting the top-level test metrics.
> 
> I see this is prep for the next patch, and the parts pulling out the
> test-runs into functions make sense. But this hunk confuses me:
> 
> > @@ -166,7 +176,7 @@ test_expect_success 'tests clean up even on failures' "
> >  	test_must_fail ./failing-cleanup.sh >out 2>err &&
> >  	! test -s err &&
> >  	! test -f \"trash directory.failing-cleanup/clean-after-failure\" &&
> > -	sed -e 's/Z$//' -e 's/^> //' >expect <<-\\EOF &&
> > +	sed -e 's/Z$//' -e 's/^> //' >expect <<-EOF &&
> >  	> not ok 1 - tests clean up even after a failure
> >  	> #	Z
> >  	> #	touch clean-after-failure &&
> 
> Is it just that you are dropping the '\' in all of the here-docs because
> they are not needed?

Hmm, I think I previously misunderstood the point of the \\ due to never seeing that syntax before (since my Perl background taught me to write <<'EOF' instead). I noticed that the tests all passed without it, and mistakenly assumed it had become unnecessary due to the refactoring.

> I think our usual style is not to interpolate, and
> to do so only when we explicitly want it, which can prevent accidental
> errors due to missing quoting.
Right, that makes sense.  I'd vote to put it back in then.
> Also, why is this one not converted into a check_sub... invocation?

Because it was much further down in that file so I didn't notice it during the refactoring ;-) I've also noticed I can use test_must_fail instead of introducing run_sub_test_lib_test_expecting_failures.

So I'll have to re-roll 4--6 again. Presumably I can just reply to [PATCH v2 4/6] with modified v3 versions without having to resend the first three in the series, which haven't changed.

Previous: Jeff KingNext: Adam Spiers
Message 10 of 19 in “make test output coloring more intuitive”
  1. 0/6 make test output coloring more intuitiveAdam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  2. 1/6 Change the color of individual known breakagesAdam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  3. 2/6 Make 'not ok $count - $message' consistent with 'ok $count - $message'Adam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  4. Jeff KingSep 19, 2012
  5. Junio C HamanoSep 19, 2012
  6. Adam SpiersSep 19, 2012
  7. 3/6 Color skipped tests the same as informational messagesAdam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  8. 4/6 Refactor mechanics of testing in a sub test-libAdam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  9. Jeff KingSep 19, 2012
  10. Adam SpiersSep 19, 2012
  11. 4/6 Refactor mechanics of testing in a sub test-libAdam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  12. 5/6 Test the test framework more thoroughlyAdam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  13. 6/6 Treat unexpectedly fixed known breakages more seriouslyAdam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  14. Junio C HamanoSep 20, 2012
  15. Jeff KingSep 19, 2012
  16. Adam SpiersSep 19, 2012
  17. 5/6 Test the test framework more thoroughlyAdam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  18. 6/6 Treat unexpectedly fixed known breakages more seriouslyAdam Spiers, Sep 19, 2012
  19. Jeff KingSep 19, 2012

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.