Jonathan Nieder wrote: > [...] >> [1] 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. HTH ATB, Ramsay Jones -- 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
