On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 07:17:08PM +0200, Reinier Lamers wrote: > Thu May 1 22:36:44 CEST 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * issue 538: set scripts executable before test if user desires > > Fri May 2 00:15:28 CEST 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * Added test for issue 538 > > Fri May 2 17:43:49 CEST 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * Fix test for issue 538
Applied, thanks! For future reference: I actually prefer shell-script tests that don't use the TAP approach. When something goes wrong, I find it *far* easier to diagnose the problem when it's demonstrated by a simple shell script using "set -ev". Also, I am much more comfortable with the test exiting after it encounters an error, rather than continuing to run. The behavior of continuing to run tests after failure strikes me as downright dangerous. True, if your test scripts are bug-free it can be made safe, but it's far safer to simply exit when the script encounters an error. The problem, of course, being that there are no tests for bugs in the test scripts. In case I've been vague, here's an example bug that would delete your repository when you run make check: # (correct code to create repository foo) $DARCS get food bar cd bar $DARCS obliterate -a Of course, few people would write such stupid code using obliterate, but buggy test scripts have often added files and/or directories to my darcs repository, and it's only luck that has kept them from recording or unrecording changes. For which reason, I'd prefer to avoid introducing new perl tests when possible, and definitely would prefer for all the shell tests to be run with set -ev. It's so easy to write (and read!) good tests in shell that there's no need to add this extra complexity. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
