Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] send-email: add test for Linux's get_maintainer.pl
- From
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
- Date
- Jan 5, 2018, 18:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAPig+cQURBQxw69RFyOGKxqyQihTh1c7djsFx3H2MJtWNXKryg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1515177413-12526-3-git-send-email-git@matthieu-moy.fr>
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Matthieu Moy <git@matthieu-moy.fr> wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> From: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > > We had a regression that broke Linux's get_maintainer.pl. Using > Mail::Address to parse email addresses fixed it, but let's protect > against future regressions. > > Patch-edited-by: Matthieu Moy <git@matthieu-moy.fr> > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <git@matthieu-moy.fr> > --- > diff --git a/t/t9001-send-email.sh b/t/t9001-send-email.sh > @@ -172,6 +172,26 @@ test_expect_success $PREREQ 'cc trailer with various syntax' ' > +test_expect_success $PREREQ 'setup fake get_maintainer.pl script for cc trailer' " > + write_script expected-cc-script.sh <<-EOF && > + echo 'One Person <one@example.com> (supporter:THIS (FOO/bar))' > + echo 'Two Person <two@example.com> (maintainer:THIS THING)' > + echo 'Third List <three@example.com> (moderated list:THIS THING (FOO/bar))' > + echo '<four@example.com> (moderated list:FOR THING)' > + echo 'five@example.com (open list:FOR THING (FOO/bar))' > + echo 'six@example.com (open list)' > + EOF > + chmod +x expected-cc-script.sh > +" > + > +test_expect_success $PREREQ 'cc trailer with get_maintainer.pl output' ' > + clean_fake_sendmail && > + git send-email -1 --to=recipient@example.com \ > + --cc-cmd="./expected-cc-script.sh" \ > + --smtp-server="$(pwd)/fake.sendmail" &&
Aside from the unnecessary (thus noisy) quotes around the --cc-cmd value, my one concern is that someone may come along and want to "normalize" it to --cc-cmd="$(pwd)/expected-cc-script.sh" for consistency with the following --smtp-server line. This worry is compounded by the commit message not explaining why these two lines differ (one using "./" and one using "$(pwd)/"). So, at minimum, it might be a good idea to explain why "./" is used for this one distinct case, compared with all the others which use "$(pwd)/". An alternative would be to insert a cleanup/modernization patch before this one which changes all the "$(pwd)/" to "./", although you'd still want to explain why that's being done (to wit: because --cc-cmd behavior with spaces is not well defined). Or, perhaps this isn't an issue and my worry is not justified (after all, the test will break if someone changes the "./" to "$(pwd)/"). At any rate, such a concern probably shouldn't hold up this patch.
Show 6 quoted lines
> + test_cmp expected-cc commandline1 > +' > + > test_expect_success $PREREQ 'setup expect' " > cat >expected-show-all-headers <<\EOF > 0001-Second.patch