Re: [PATCH 08/16] t5304: use helper to report failure of "test foo = bar"
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Oct 4, 2014, 00:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20141004001325.GC17063@peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqsij4kdch.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:17:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> > That's a bit verbose. We could hide it behind something like test_eq,
> > too, but it introduces several extra new processes.
>
> What do you mean by "extra new processes"? Whether open coded in a
> verbose way, or wrapped inside a helper, e.g.
>
> test_eql () {
> echo "$1" >expect &&
> shift &&
> "$@" >actual &&
> test_cmp expect actual
> }
> ...
> test_eql whatever do_something
>
> the number of processes would be the same, no?
>
> Or do you mean test_cmp is an extra process compared with
>
> test_eq whatever "$(do_something)"Sorry, yeah, I meant new processes versus "test $foo = $bar".
> Hopefully, do_something does something more than what takes test_cmp > to run, so I wouldn't be worried too much about it.
Yeah, I may just be overly paranoid here. If we are not worried about a few extra processes, then the test_eql you showed above may be preferable, because its output is uniform with other test_cmp tests (although maybe it also introduces problems, because it does not handle stray whitespace in the same way, and it puts extra files in the working tree).
-Peff