Re: [RFC/PATCH] t3300-*.sh: Fix a TAP parse error

From: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
Date: Jul 28, 2012, 18:03 UTC
Message-ID: <50142965.4020801@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20120725205120.GD4732@burratino>

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> [...]
>> [1] For example, what should/will happen if someone uses test_must_fail,
>> test_might_fail, etc., within the test_fixture script? Should they simply
>> be banned within a text_fixture?
> 
> Why wouldn't they act just like they do in test_expect_success blocks?

Heh, well they do indeed act just like they do in text_expect_success blocks!

I spent only about 20 minutes writing test_fixture, playing with it, and then deciding to shelve it for now. Again, I wanted a *quick* fix for the TAP parse error, so that it would make it into v1.7.12. :(

Having now spent a further 30 minutes, I can see that I did a better job than I thought! :-P

Actually, scratch that; rather I should say that Junio and the other authors of the test infrastructure did such a good job (particularly with separation of concerns), that I lucked into a good implementation.

I still haven't done any serious testing, so if I subsequently find any problems, then the lousy implementation is my fault! ;-)

> FWIW I find Junio's test_setup name more self-explanatory.  What
> mnemonic should I be using to remember the _fixture name?

I don't have a problem with 'test_setup' either; test-fixture comes from the various xUnit unit-test libraries. (I think Kent Beck et.al. wrote JUnit first and then it was ported to various other languages. eg cppUnit for C++).

Briefly, a test-fixture provides a context or common environment, via code for test setup and teardown, in which to run one or more tests.

HTH

ATB, Ramsay Jones