Hi Michal, I found myself today *really* needing to add a test that exercises some code in our emacs client. (Eric found that a message that includes a ":" in the From: address breaks things due to a buggy regexp.) And I wanted to see if I could merge your conversion of the test suite before I added a feature as big as that. See below for my feedback.
-Carl On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:14:24 +0100, Michal Sojka <sojk...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote: > I converted the actual version of notmuch-test to git test framework. > The result is in the followup patches. Interesting. My only real concern at this point is that some of the new files have a copyright header identifying Junio as the copyright holder, but no license information. Meanwhile, the implicit license of git (GPLv2 only) is incompatible with that of notmuch (GPLv3+). So if you'd like to ask Junio for permission to re-use the files under the GPLv3+ then we could see what he says. In the meantime, you've done some nice modularization work here which we should be able to take right away, (and I can write tiny implementations of the functions we need so that we can just drop in git's test-lib.sh if we get permission). So we won't yet have any of the fancy features of the framework, (expected failures, reports of fixed tests, pre-requisites for tests), but we're not *using* any of those features yet so it shouldn't matter. > The conversion was not as straightforward as I expected mainly because > of problems with quoting. There are several sources of quotation problems > one being Carl's hashed array parameters. I thing it would be > sufficient to use plain variables for passing additional parameters. > Instead of: > add_message [from]="\"Sender <sen...@example.com>\"" \ > [to]=test_su...@notmuchmail.org \ ... > I'd do: > msg_from="Sender <sen...@example.com>" > msg_to=test_su...@notmuchmail.org > add_message Yeah. I almost wrote it that way, but named parameters (even if faked) seemed so much nicer. I'll agree that the quoting was quite nasty though. > A possible additional improvement is elimination of > execute_expecting(). Combination of action (running notmuch) and > testing of a result in a single function makes it hard to distinguish > whether the problem is in the action or in the output. A fair point. It also caused problems when I wanted to do tests that didn't directly test the output of notmuch, (such as a test that uses diff to compare a result against the contents in a file). -Carl
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list email@example.com http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch