On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:29:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > test_eq () {
> > if test "$1" != "$2"
> > then
> > printf "%s" "$1" >expect &&
> > printf "%s" "$2" >actual &&
> > test_cmp expect actual
> > fi
> > }
> [...]
>
> The above superficially looks nice; "! test_eq a b" would give
> useless output under "-v", and "test_ne a b" needs to be added if
> you go that route, though.
Yeah, that is why I ended up with the operator as a parameter. I modeled
after test_line_count, which faces the same problem (negation must
happen in the operator, not the full command).
> Anyway, with the version posted, you cannot do "! test_eq a b",
> either but with "test_eq a b !=", you do not have to.
>
> Side note. Yes, now I looked at it again, I agree that the
> three-arg form is awkwards in at least two ways. The
> operator, if we are to take one, should be infix, and the
> name "eq" no longer matches what it does when it is given an
> operator.
I made it postfix because it's optional, and my inclination is to handle
arguments left-to-right, since that extends to multiple optional
arguments. But of course we have just one optional argument and can
simply treat 2-arg and 3-arg forms differently. However, Michael noted
that this is really just 'test "$@"', and I think we should allow any
"test" parameters.
> The function is similar to test_cmp which takes two files but takes
> two strings, so "test_cmp_str" or something perhaps (we already have
> test_cmp_rev to compare two revisions, and the suggested name
> follows that pattern)?
Based on your responses, I'm leaning towards:
test_cmp_str() {
test "$@" && return 0
echo >&2 "command failed: test $*"
return 1
}
since the point is really just to print _something_ when the test fails
(any quoting or whitespace may be wrong, of course, but that's OK; it's
for human consumption, and is just a hint).
Maybe "str" is not right here. Michael suggested "test_test" which is
semantically what we want, but just looks silly[1]. Maybe
"test_pred" or something? "test_cond"? Or I guess going the other way,
"sane_test" or "verbose_test" or something.
I think test_cond is my favorite of those.
-Peff
[1] Of course, we could always do "test_[". :)
--
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
