Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 28, 2013, 17:05 UTC
Message-ID: <7vvc6311dr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1369745671-22418-5-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>

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

Show 18 quoted lines

> 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
        }