From: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 21:11:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] json-writer: t0019: add Python unit test
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:
> 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