Re: [PATCH 5/5] test-run-command: Increase test coverage
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 20, 2015, 18:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq1tcp8j82.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1445279086-31066-6-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com>
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
Show 60 quoted lines
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
> ---
> t/t0061-run-command.sh | 16 +++++++++++++---
> test-run-command.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t0061-run-command.sh b/t/t0061-run-command.sh
> index 0af77cd..f27ada7 100755
> --- a/t/t0061-run-command.sh
> +++ b/t/t0061-run-command.sh
> @@ -62,8 +62,18 @@ Hello
> World
> EOF
>
> -test_expect_success 'run_command runs in parallel' '
> - test-run-command run-command-parallel-4 sh -c "printf \"%s\n%s\n\" Hello World" 2>actual &&
> +test_expect_success 'run_command runs in parallel with more jobs available than tasks' '
> + test-run-command run-command-parallel 5 sh -c "printf \"%s\n%s\n\" Hello World" 2>actual &&
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'run_command runs in parallel with as many jobs as tasks' '
> + test-run-command run-command-parallel 4 sh -c "printf \"%s\n%s\n\" Hello World" 2>actual &&
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'run_command runs in parallel with more tasks than jobs available' '
> + test-run-command run-command-parallel 3 sh -c "printf \"%s\n%s\n\" Hello World" 2>actual &&
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
>
> @@ -77,7 +87,7 @@ asking for a quick stop
> EOF
>
> test_expect_success 'run_command is asked to abort gracefully' '
> - test-run-command run-command-abort-3 false 2>actual &&
> + test-run-command run-command-abort 3 false 2>actual &&
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
>
> diff --git a/test-run-command.c b/test-run-command.c
> index 4b59482..44710c3 100644
> --- a/test-run-command.c
> +++ b/test-run-command.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ static int task_finished(int result,
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> struct child_process proc = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> + int jobs;
>
> if (argc < 3)
> return 1;
> @@ -61,12 +62,15 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command"))
> exit(run_command(&proc));
>
> - if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command-parallel-4"))
> - exit(run_processes_parallel(4, parallel_next,
> + jobs = atoi(argv[2]);
> + proc.argv = (const char **)argv+3;proc.argv = (const char **)argv + 3;
or
proc.argv = (const char **)&argv[3];
Given the line immediately before refers to argv[2], the latter might be easier on the eyes to follow.
In what way does this "Increase" test coverage? By allowing the caller to specify arbitrarily higher parallelism?
Show 12 quoted lines
> + > + if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command-parallel")) > + exit(run_processes_parallel(jobs, parallel_next, > NULL, NULL, &proc)); > > - if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command-abort-3")) > - exit(run_processes_parallel(3, parallel_next, > + if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command-abort")) > + exit(run_processes_parallel(jobs, parallel_next, > NULL, task_finished, &proc)); > > fprintf(stderr, "check usage\n");