Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>  For example, what should/will happen if someone uses test_must_fail,
>> test_might_fail, etc., within the test_fixture script? Should they simply
>> be banned within a text_fixture?
> Why wouldn't they act just like they do in test_expect_success blocks?
Heh, well they do indeed act just like they do in text_expect_success blocks!
I spent only about 20 minutes writing test_fixture, playing with it, and then
deciding to shelve it for now. Again, I wanted a *quick* fix for the TAP
parse error, so that it would make it into v1.7.12. :(
Having now spent a further 30 minutes, I can see that I did a better job than
I thought! :-P
Actually, scratch that; rather I should say that Junio and the other authors
of the test infrastructure did such a good job (particularly with separation
of concerns), that I lucked into a good implementation.
I still haven't done any serious testing, so if I subsequently find any
problems, then the lousy implementation is my fault! ;-)
> FWIW I find Junio's test_setup name more self-explanatory. What
> mnemonic should I be using to remember the _fixture name?
I don't have a problem with 'test_setup' either; test-fixture comes from the
various xUnit unit-test libraries. (I think Kent Beck et.al. wrote JUnit first
and then it was ported to various other languages. eg cppUnit for C++).
Briefly, a test-fixture provides a context or common environment, via code for
test setup and teardown, in which to run one or more tests.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html