Michał Kiedrowicz <[email protected]> writes:
> Jeff King wrote:
>
> The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
> releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
> commercial Unixes.
>
> We already purged it in b3431bc (Don't use seq in tests, not
> everyone has it, 2007-05-02), but a few new instances have crept
> in. They went unnoticed because they are in scripts that are not
> run by default.
>
> Replace them with test_seq that is implemented with a Perl snippet
> (proposed by Jeff). This is better than inlining this snippet
> everywhere it's needed because it's easier to read and it's easier to
> change the implementation (e.g. to C) if we ever decide to remove Perl
> from the test suite.
>
> Note that test_seq is not a complete replacement for seq(1). It just
> has what we need now.
>
> There are also many places that do `for i in 1 2 3 ...` but I'm not sure
> if it's worth converting them to test_seq. That would introduce running
> more processes of Perl.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Kiedrowicz <[email protected]>
> ---
Thanks; Jeff, ack?
I have one minor nit that I am tempted to fix while queuing---see
below.
> Changes since previous version:
>
> * Removed "This commit replaces" from commit message
> * Reworded test_seq description
> * Now $first and $last are passed to Perl as arguments
>
> t/perf/perf-lib.sh | 2 +-
> t/t5551-http-fetch.sh | 2 +-
> t/test-lib-functions.sh | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/perf/perf-lib.sh b/t/perf/perf-lib.sh
> index 5580c22..a1361e5 100644
> --- a/t/perf/perf-lib.sh
> +++ b/t/perf/perf-lib.sh
> @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ test_perf () {
> else
> echo "perf $test_count - $1:"
> fi
> - for i in $(seq 1 $GIT_PERF_REPEAT_COUNT); do
> + for i in $(test_seq 1 $GIT_PERF_REPEAT_COUNT); do
> say >&3 "running: $2"
> if test_run_perf_ "$2"
> then
> diff --git a/t/t5551-http-fetch.sh b/t/t5551-http-fetch.sh
> index fadf2f2..91eaf53 100755
> --- a/t/t5551-http-fetch.sh
> +++ b/t/t5551-http-fetch.sh
> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ test -n "$GIT_TEST_LONG" && test_set_prereq EXPENSIVE
> test_expect_success EXPENSIVE 'create 50,000 tags in the repo' '
> (
> cd "$HTTPD_DOCUMENT_ROOT_PATH/repo.git" &&
> - for i in `seq 50000`
> + for i in `test_seq 50000`
> do
> echo "commit refs/heads/too-many-refs"
> echo "mark :$i"
> diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> index 80daaca..c8b4ae3 100644
> --- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> @@ -530,6 +530,26 @@ test_cmp() {
> $GIT_TEST_CMP "$@"
> }
>
> +# Print a sequence of numbers or letters in increasing order. This is
> +# similar to GNU seq(1), but the latter might not be available
> +# everywhere. It may be used like:
> +#
> +# for i in `test_seq 100`; do
> +# for j in `test_seq 10 20`; do
> +# for k in `test_seq a z`; do
> +# echo $i-$j-$k
> +# done
> +# done
> +# done
> +
> +test_seq () {
> + test $# = 2 && { first=$1; shift; } || first=1
> + test $# = 1 ||
> + error "bug in the test script: not 1 or 2 parameters to test_seq"
> + last=$1
> + "$PERL_PATH" -le 'print for "$ARGV[0]".."$ARGV[1]"' "$first" "$last"
I'd prefer not to have dq around $ARGV[]; is there a reason to have
one around these?
> +}
> +
> # This function can be used to schedule some commands to be run
> # unconditionally at the end of the test to restore sanity:
> #
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
