From: Felipe Contreras Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:41:54 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] test: improve rebase -q test Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vfvwrowd0.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Felipe Contreras writes: >>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> >>>>> --- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh >>>>> +++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh >>>>> @@ -606,6 +606,18 @@ test_cmp() { >>>>> $GIT_TEST_CMP "$@" >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> +# Check if the file expected to be empty is indeed empty, and barfs >>>>> +# otherwise. >>>>> + >>>>> +test_output_must_be_empty () { >>>> >>>> Why such a big name? test_empty() does the trick. >>> >>> Primarily in order to avoid that exact name "test_empty" that others >>> may want to use for a helper to check that the contents of a string >>> variable is empty. >> >> Which is never going to happen. > > For anything, a failure from > > test -z "$mustbeemptystring" > > in the test suite is much harder to diagnose because there is > nothing left in the trash directory to inspect, as opposed to > > test ! -s "$mustbeemptyfile" > > where you can just go there and inspect yourself. Except that it's usually gone. And I challenge you to find a instance where there's a test -z "$mustbeemptystring" that throws a test failure. It will take you time to find it (if there's any). Moreover, by that rationale, we should call test_cmp, test_file_cmp, but there's no need, because that's rarely needed (if at all). There will not be a need for test_string_must_be_empty() just like there's no need for test_string_cmp(). -- Felipe Contreras