Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] json-writer: t0019: add Python unit test
- From
- Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
- Date
- Jun 6, 2018, 21:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <dafabaf6-2cf7-6725-8524-9089776c31c3@jeffhostetler.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20180606210300.GA1879@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 6/6/2018 5:03 PM, Jeff King wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 01:10:52PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > >> git@jeffhostetler.com wrote: >>> +# As a sanity check, ask Python to parse our generated JSON. Let Python >>> +# recursively dump the resulting dictionary in sorted order. Confirm that >>> +# that matches our expectations. >>> +test_expect_success PYTHON 'parse JSON using Python' ' >> [...] >>> + python "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t0019/parse_json_1.py <output.json >actual && >> >> Would this be better using $PYTHON_PATH rather than >> hard-coding python as the command? > > Probably. We may want to go the same route as we did for perl in > a0e0ec9f7d (t: provide a perl() function which uses $PERL_PATH, > 2013-10-28) so that test writers don't have to remember this. > > That said, I wonder if it would be hard to simply do the python bits > here in perl. This is the first use of python in our test scripts (and > really the only user in the whole code base outside of a few fringe > commands). Leaving aside any perl vs python flame-war, I think there's > value in keeping the number of languages limited when there's not a > compelling reason to do otherwise. >
Perl works too. (I don't know perl, but I'm told it does work for stuff like this. :-)
I'll take a stab at it.
Jeff