Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] tests: turn GPG, GPGSM and RFC1991 into lazy prereqs

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 27, 2020, 21:37 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1rpdfpj5.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cT6CQsYyMR=-nAo7GD8mXAWyUWPrbTnCZ0nBs54Ah0PbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

Show 24 quoted lines

> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:44 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH] t/README: suggest how to leave test early with failure
>> +       test_expect_success 'git frotz on various versions' '
>> +           for revision in one two three
>> +           do
>> +                   echo "frotz $revision" >expect &&
>> +                   git frotz "$revision" >actual &&
>> +                   test_cmp expect actual || return 1
>> +           done &&
>> +           test something else
>> +       '
>> +
>> +    Note that this is only possible in our test suite, where we
>> +    arrange to run your test <script> wrapped inside a helper
>> +    function to ensure that return values matter; in your own script
>> +    outside any function, this technique may not work.
>> +
>>  And here are the "don'ts:"
>>
>>   - Don't exit() within a <script> part.
>
> We use 'exit 1' to terminate subshells[1] inside tests.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20150325052952.GE31924@peff.net/

Yeah, I gave two alternatives, but the third one could be

       test_expect_success 'git frotz on various versions' '
           (
             for revision in one two three
             do
                     echo "frotz $revision" >expect &&
                     git frotz "$revision" >actual &&
                     test_cmp expect actual || exit 1
             done 
           ) &&
           test something else
       '

Anyway, that existing rule is not what I added in the rough draft under discussion. To clarify it, we'd end up needing "unless A, B or C" that may be too complex. I dunno.

Thanks.