Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] test-lib: add a function to compare an expection with stdout from a command

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 17, 2016, 06:41 UTC
Message-ID: <20160417064140.GA31993@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cTOa2yaMikOJHQXpSjY_EtyUXaqVz4KobQwO2xn=Q6h_w@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 02:36:24AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Agreed. I wouldn't mind the version where test_stdout grabs "expected"
> from <<EOF, but, as you say, it doesn't buy much over the manually
> prepared test_cmp version.
> 
> I suppose that the one-liner form of test_stdout could have its uses,
> however, it bothers me for a couple reasons: (1) it's not generally
> useful like the version which grabs "expected" from <<EOF, (2) it
> squats on a nice concise name which would better suit the <<EOF
> version.

I think you could get around your second objection by making "-" a magic token, like:

  test_stdout - = git rev-parse ... <<-\EOF
  false
  EOF

Though I admit the combination of "-" and "=" is pretty ugly to read.

I'm OK with abandoning this line of inquiry, too. This may be a case where a little repetition makes things a lot less magical to a reader, and it's not worth trying to devise the perfect helper.

Show 6 quoted lines

> Anyhow, this may all be moot (for now) since I think this patch series
> is going in the wrong direction entirely by abandoning the systematic
> approach taken by the original t1500 code, as explained in my
> review[1]. If modernization of t1500 retains a systematic approach,
> then the repetitive code which prompted the suggestion of test_stdout
> won't exist in the first place.

Fair enough. I haven't really followed the other part of the series very closely.

-Peff