Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > Ramsay Jones wrote: >> Junio C Hamano wrote: > >>> Observing that all well-written test scripts we have begin with this >>> boilerplate line: >>> >>> test_expect_success setup ' >>> >>> I wouldn't mind introducing a new helper function test_setup that >>> behaves like test_expect_success but is meant to be used in the >>> first "set-up" phase of the tests in a test script. > > Neat. This could be used for later set-up tests, too, perhaps with a > long-term goal of making non set-up tests independent of each other > (reorderable and skippable). > > [...] >> [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? > > FWIW I find Junio's test_setup name more self-explanatory. What > mnemonic should I be using to remember the _fixture name?
I see that I was distracted by the "where does the fixture come from" and did not follow through. I think what it does makes sense (I haven't checked all the redirections, though). Do we want to resurrect the topic? It needs a paragraph in the proposed commit log and t/README to explain the motivation and the usage. Thanks. -- 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
