Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] t1500: test_rev_parse: facilitate future test enhancements

From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>
Date: May 18, 2016, 16:38 UTC
Message-ID: <20160518183827.Horde.e7PY7wuh3iXKFZgoQ0oLR3D@webmail.informatik.kit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20160517193630.10379-3-sunshine@sunshineco.com>

Quoting Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Tests run by test_rev_parse() are nearly identical; each invokes
> git-rev-parse with a single option and compares the result against an
> expected value. Such duplication makes it onerous to extend the tests
> since any change needs to be repeated in each test. Avoid the
> duplication by parameterizing the test and driving it via a for-loop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
> ---
>  t/t1500-rev-parse.sh | 44 +++++++++++++++++---------------------------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t1500-rev-parse.sh b/t/t1500-rev-parse.sh
> index 0194f54..c84f5c3 100755
> --- a/t/t1500-rev-parse.sh
> +++ b/t/t1500-rev-parse.sh

Show 11 quoted lines

> +	for o in is-bare-repository \
> +		 is-inside-git-dir \
> +		 is-inside-work-tree \
> +		 show-prefix \
> +		 git-dir
> +	do
> +		test $# -eq 0 && break
> +		expect="$1"
> +		test_expect_success "$name: $o" '
> +			echo "$expect" >expect &&
> +			git rev-parse --$o >actual &&

I think that "--$o" looks really weird, but that's subjective, of course.

However, the idea popped up in an other thread[1] that we might want something like 'git rev-parse --absolute-path --git-dir', which wouldn't really work with '--$o'.

Even if we don't go that route, perhaps it would be better to list the options to be tested including their doubledash prefix.

[1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/287449/focus=292585