On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 07:42:35AM -0700, Brian Henderson wrote: > > > +# PERL is required, but assumed to be present, although not necessarily > > > modern > > > +# some tests require 5.8 > > > +test_expect_success PERL 'name' 'true' > > > > If the platform lacks PERL prerequisite, this will simply be > > skipped, and if the platform has it, it will always succeed. > > > > I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by having this line > > here. > > I originally didn't have this line, and my comment was referring to the > t/README which says > > Even without the PERL prerequisite, tests can assume there is a > usable perl interpreter at $PERL_PATH, though it need not be > particularly modern. > > There is current functionality in diff-highlight which requires at least > perl 5.8 (the utf8 functions). I was going to add a test for this as > well, but I'm not super comfy with multibyte chars.
Yeah, I'd agree this test would want the PERL prereq. It is not just using perl for one-liners in support of the script; it is testing major perl functionality that should be skipped if we do not have a modern perl available. > Eric recommended adding this line, what do you think? > > would `test_set_prereq PERL` be better? test_set_prereq is for telling the test scripts that we _have_ perl, but what I think this script wants to do is test "do we have perl?" and abort otherwise. The way to do that is: if ! test_have_prereq PERL then skip_all='skipping diff-highlight tests; perl not available' test_done fi > > > +test_expect_success 'diff-highlight does not highlight whole line' ' > > > + dh_test \ > > > + "aaa\nbbb\nccc\n" \ > > > + "aaa\n000\nccc\n" > > > +' > > This (at least to me) is desired. See comment for `sub > is_pair_interesting` Yeah, that is an intentional behavior, and makes sense to test. > > > +test_expect_success 'diff-highlight does not highlight mismatched hunk > > > size' ' > > > + dh_test \ > > > + "aaa\nbbb\n" \ > > > + "aaa\nb0b\nccc\n" > > > +' > > This is undesired behavior, but currently implemented for simplicity, > see `sub show_hunk` > > Do they need comments or something? Undesired behavior should generally not be tested for. It just makes life harder for somebody when they make a change that violates it, and they have to figure out "oh, but it's _good_ that I changed that, the tests were wrong" (or more likely "I didn't fix it, but it's just broken in a different way, and neither is preferable"). If you want to document known shortcomings, the best thing to do is show what you'd _like_ to have happen, and mark it as test_expect_failure; the test scripts show this as a known-breakage, and somebody later who fixes it can flip the "failure" to "success". -Peff -- 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