From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:52:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test
Message-ID: <7vr4gpvic7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <51a56a31947d6_807b33e1899765@nysa.mail>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Let's show the output so it's clear why it failed.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> >  t/t3400-rebase.sh | 1 +
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/t/t3400-rebase.sh b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
>> > index b58fa1a..fb39531 100755
>> > --- a/t/t3400-rebase.sh
>> > +++ b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
>> > @@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ test_expect_success 'default to @{upstream} when upstream arg is missing' '
>> >  test_expect_success 'rebase -q is quiet' '
>> >  	git checkout -b quiet topic &&
>> >  	git rebase -q master >output.out 2>&1 &&
>> > +	cat output.out &&
>> >  	test ! -s output.out
>> >  '
>> 
>> It is one thing to avoid squelching output that naturally comes out
>> of command being tested unnecessarily, so that "./txxxx-*.sh -v"
>> output can be used for debugging.  I however am not sure if adding
>> "cat" to random places like this is a productive direction for us to
>> go in.
>> 
>> A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
>> test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
>> places that do "test ! -s <filename>"), perhaps?
>> 
>>         test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
>>                 if test -s "$1"
>>                 then
>>                         cat "$1"
>>                         false
>>                 fi
>>         }
>
> Perhaps, but I'm not interested. I'm tired of obvious fixes getting rejected
> for hypothetical "ideal" situations that we'll never reach.

That's too bad.  Addition of "cat" where there does not need one is
clearly not an obvious fix anyway.