Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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).
>>>  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.
Yes, this is on my TODO list.
I will name the function 'test_setup' rather than 'test_fixture'.
Also, the test_fixture function had a single script parameter, since
I didn't see the point of having a "title" like test_expect_success.
However, I'm now in two minds about this; if it were to take a title
it may be useful to include the title in the error message, if the
test contained multiple calls to test_setup. I'm still inclined to
*not* include a title parameter ...
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