On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 23:42:13 -0400, Austin Clements <amdragon at mit.edu> wrote:
> Great idea!
>
> Just a heads-up, this will conflict with the first two patches in the
> atomicity series (though git may not detect the second conflict).
> Both are trivial patches, though, so the merge should be easy.
>
Oh. I hope atomicity will be there soon.
> Three minor comments below.
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Dmitry Kurochkin
> <dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is existing support for broken tests. ?But it is not convenient
> > to use. ?The primary issue is that we have to maintain a set of
> > test_expect_*_failure functions which are equivalent to the normal
> > test_expect_* counterparts except for what functions are called for
> > result reporting. ?The patch adds test_subtest_known_broken function
> > which marks a subset as broken, making the normal test_expect_*
> > functions behave as test_expect_*_failure. ?All test_expect_*_failure
> > functions are removed. ?Test_known_broken_failure_ is changed to
> > format details the same way as test_failure_ does.
> >
> > Another benefit of this change is that the diff when a broken test is
> > fixed would be small and nice.
> >
> > Documentation is updated accordingly.
> > ---
> > ?test/README ? ? ?| ? 17 ++++++++---------
> > ?test/test-lib.sh | ? 53
> > +++++++++++++++--------------------------------------
> > ?2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/test/README b/test/README
> > index a245bf1..f926b9f 100644
> > --- a/test/README
> > +++ b/test/README
> > @@ -132,20 +132,19 @@ library for your script to use.
> > ? ?<script>. ?If it yields success, test is considered
> > ? ?successful. ?<message> should state what it is testing.
> >
> > - test_expect_failure <message> <script>
> > -
> > - ? This is NOT the opposite of test_expect_success, but is used
> > - ? to mark a test that demonstrates a known breakage. ?Unlike
> > - ? the usual test_expect_success tests, which say "ok" on
> > - ? success and "FAIL" on failure, this will say "FIXED" on
> > - ? success and "still broken" on failure. ?Failures from these
> > - ? tests won't cause -i (immediate) to stop.
> > -
> > ?test_begin_subtest <message>
> >
> > ? ?Set the test description message for a subsequent test_expect_equal
> > ? ?invocation (see below).
> >
> > + test_subtest_known_broken
> > +
> > + ? Mark the current test as broken. ?Such tests are expected to fail.
> > + ? Unlike the normal tests, which say "PASS" on success and "FAIL" on
> > + ? failure, these will say "FIXED" on success and "BROKEN" on failure.
> > + ? Failures from these tests won't cause -i (immediate) to stop. ?This
> > + ? must be called before any test_expect_* function.
>
> Perhaps "A test must call this before any test_expect_* function"?
> There can be earlier test_expect_* calls from other tests.
>
makes sense
> > +
> > ?test_expect_equal <output> <expected>
> >
> > ? ?This is an often-used convenience function built on top of
> > diff --git a/test/test-lib.sh b/test/test-lib.sh
> > index 22e387e..0cd4170 100755
> > --- a/test/test-lib.sh
> > +++ b/test/test-lib.sh
> > @@ -424,6 +424,7 @@ test_begin_subtest ()
> > ? ? ? ?error "bug in test script: Missing test_expect_equal in
> > ${BASH_SOURCE[1]}:${BASH_LINENO[0]}"
> > ? ? fi
> > ? ? test_subtest_name="$1"
> > + ? ?test_subtest_known_broken_=
> > ? ? # Remember stdout and stderr file descriptors and redirect test
> > ? ? # output to the previously prepared file descriptors 3 and 4 (see
> > ? ? # below)
> > @@ -484,29 +485,6 @@ test_expect_equal_file ()
> > ? ? fi
> > ?}
> >
> > -test_expect_equal_failure ()
> > -{
> > - ? ? ? exec 1>&6 2>&7 ? ? ? ? ?# Restore stdout and stderr
> > - ? ? ? inside_subtest=
> > - ? ? ? test "$#" = 3 && { prereq=$1; shift; } || prereq=
> > - ? ? ? test "$#" = 2 ||
> > - ? ? ? error "bug in the test script: not 2 or 3 parameters to
> > test_expect_equal"
> > -
> > - ? ? ? output="$1"
> > - ? ? ? expected="$2"
> > - ? ? ? if ! test_skip "$@"
> > - ? ? ? then
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if [ "$output" = "$expected" ]; then
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? test_known_broken_ok_ "$test_subtest_name"
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? else
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? test_known_broken_failure_ "$test_subtest_name"
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? testname=$this_test.$test_count
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? echo "$expected" > $testname.expected
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? echo "$output" > $testname.output
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fi
> > - ? ?fi
> > -}
> > -
> > ?NOTMUCH_NEW ()
> > ?{
> > ? ? notmuch new | grep -v -E -e '^Processed [0-9]*( total)? file|Found
> > [0-9]* total file'
> > @@ -568,12 +546,20 @@ test_have_prereq () {
> > ?# the text_expect_* functions instead.
> >
> > ?test_ok_ () {
> > + ? ? ? if [ "$test_subtest_known_broken_" = 1 ]; then
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? test_known_broken_ok_ "$@"
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return
> > + ? ? ? fi
> > ? ? ? ?test_success=$(($test_success + 1))
> > ? ? ? ?say_color pass "%-6s" "PASS"
> > ? ? ? ?echo " $@"
> > ?}
> >
> > ?test_failure_ () {
> > + ? ? ? if [ "$test_subtest_known_broken_" = 1 ]; then
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? test_known_broken_failure_ "$@"
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return
> > + ? ? ? fi
> > ? ? ? ?test_failure=$(($test_failure + 1))
> > ? ? ? ?say_color error "%-6s" "FAIL"
> > ? ? ? ?echo " $1"
> > @@ -592,7 +578,10 @@ test_known_broken_ok_ () {
> > ?test_known_broken_failure_ () {
> > ? ? ? ?test_broken=$(($test_broken+1))
> > ? ? ? ?say_color pass "%-6s" "BROKEN"
> > - ? ? ? echo " $@"
> > + ? ? ? echo " $1"
> > + ? ? ? shift
> > + ? ? ? echo "$@" | sed -e 's/^/ ? ? ? ?/'
> > + ? ? ? if test "$verbose" != "t"; then cat test.output; fi
>
> Would it be possible to keep just the one copy of the failure printing
> code in test_failure_?
>
Sure, it is possible if I am not so lazy.
> > ?}
> >
> > ?test_debug () {
> > @@ -636,20 +625,8 @@ test_skip () {
> > ? ? ? ?esac
> > ?}
> >
> > -test_expect_failure () {
> > - ? ? ? test "$#" = 3 && { prereq=$1; shift; } || prereq=
> > - ? ? ? test "$#" = 2 ||
> > - ? ? ? error "bug in the test script: not 2 or 3 parameters to
> > test-expect-failure"
> > - ? ? ? if ! test_skip "$@"
> > - ? ? ? then
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? test_run_ "$2"
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if [ "$?" = 0 -a "$eval_ret" = 0 ]
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? then
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? test_known_broken_ok_ "$1"
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? else
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? test_known_broken_failure_ "$1"
> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fi
> > - ? ? ? fi
> > +test_subtest_known_broken () {
> > + ? ? ? test_subtest_known_broken_=1
>
> The convention in test-lib appears to be "t" for true variables.
>
Thanks for the hint.
Will follow with an amend.
Regards,
Dmitry
> > ?}
> >
> > ?test_expect_success () {
> > --
> > 1.7.5.4
