Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Let's show the output so it's clear why it failed.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
---
t/t3400-rebase.sh | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/t/t3400-rebase.sh b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
index b58fa1a..fb39531 100755
--- a/t/t3400-rebase.sh
+++ b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
@@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ test_expect_success 'default to @{upstream} when
upstream arg is missing' '
test_expect_success 'rebase -q is quiet' '
git checkout -b quiet topic
git rebase -q master output.out 21
+ cat output.out
test ! -s output.out
'
It is one thing to avoid squelching output that naturally comes out
of command being tested unnecessarily, so that ./t-*.sh -v
output can be used for debugging. I however am not sure if adding
cat to random places like this is a productive direction for us to
go in.
A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
places that do test ! -s filename), perhaps?
test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
if test -s $1
then
cat $1
false
fi
}
Perhaps, but I'm not interested. I'm tired of obvious fixes getting rejected
for hypothetical ideal situations that we'll never reach.
That's too bad. Addition of cat where there does not need one is
clearly not an obvious fix anyway.
--
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
Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Let's show the output so it's clear why it failed.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
---
t/t3400-rebase.sh | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/t/t3400-rebase.sh b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
index b58fa1a..fb39531 100755
--- a/t/t3400-rebase.sh
+++ b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
@@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ test_expect_success 'default to @{upstream} when
upstream arg is missing' '
test_expect_success 'rebase -q is quiet' '
git checkout -b quiet topic
git rebase -q master output.out 21
+ cat output.out
test ! -s output.out
'
It is one thing to avoid squelching output that naturally comes out
of command being tested unnecessarily, so that ./t-*.sh -v
output can be used for debugging. I however am not sure if adding
cat to random places like this is a productive direction for us to
go in.
A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
places that do test ! -s filename), perhaps?
test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
if test -s $1
then
cat $1
false
fi
}
Perhaps, but I'm not interested. I'm tired of obvious fixes getting rejected
for hypothetical ideal situations that we'll never reach.
That's too bad. Addition of cat where there does not need one is
clearly not an obvious fix anyway.
If you are an actual real user of this code; a developer that is
running the test; and the test finally achieves it's designed goal of
detecting a failure, you would be left scratching your head wondering
what's the problem if running './test -v' doesn't show anything, even
after you have added debugging code to narrow down the issue.
I had to add that cat line not once, but more than two times in
different lines of development.
So yeah, a cat is needed, and the fact you don't see that amazes me,
specially after you have reprimanded me for using 'grep -q' instead of
'grep' for this very reason.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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
Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Let's show the output so it's clear why it failed.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
---
t/t3400-rebase.sh | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/t/t3400-rebase.sh b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
index b58fa1a..fb39531 100755
--- a/t/t3400-rebase.sh
+++ b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
@@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ test_expect_success 'default to @{upstream} when upstream
arg is missing' '
test_expect_success 'rebase -q is quiet' '
git checkout -b quiet topic
git rebase -q master output.out 21
+ cat output.out
test ! -s output.out
'
It is one thing to avoid squelching output that naturally comes out
of command being tested unnecessarily, so that ./t-*.sh -v
output can be used for debugging. I however am not sure if adding
cat to random places like this is a productive direction for us to
go in.
A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
places that do test ! -s filename), perhaps?
test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
if test -s $1
then
cat $1
false
fi
}
--
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
Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test
Junio C Hamano wrote:
A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
places that do test ! -s filename), perhaps?
test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
if test -s $1
then
cat $1
false
fi
}
I generally just use the two-liner
empty
test_cmp empty output
directly in cases like this.
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
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
Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
places that do test ! -s filename), perhaps?
test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
if test -s $1
then
cat $1
false
fi
}
I generally just use the two-liner
empty
test_cmp empty output
directly in cases like this.
That would work, too.
--
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
Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Let's show the output so it's clear why it failed.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
---
t/t3400-rebase.sh | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/t/t3400-rebase.sh b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
index b58fa1a..fb39531 100755
--- a/t/t3400-rebase.sh
+++ b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
@@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ test_expect_success 'default to @{upstream} when
upstream arg is missing' '
test_expect_success 'rebase -q is quiet' '
git checkout -b quiet topic
git rebase -q master output.out 21
+ cat output.out
test ! -s output.out
'
It is one thing to avoid squelching output that naturally comes out
of command being tested unnecessarily, so that ./t-*.sh -v
output can be used for debugging. I however am not sure if adding
cat to random places like this is a productive direction for us to
go in.
A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
places that do test ! -s filename), perhaps?
test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
if test -s $1
then
cat $1
false
fi
}
Perhaps, but I'm not interested. I'm tired of obvious fixes getting rejected
for hypothetical ideal situations that we'll never reach.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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
