On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:17:07AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
On 10/07/2014 11:53 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Hmph, your 'test' in that name is a generic verb we check that...,
which I think aligns better with the other test_foo functions. When
I suggested 'test_verbose', 'test' in that
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:17:07AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
On 10/07/2014 11:53 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Hmph, your 'test' in that name is a generic verb we check that...,
which I think aligns better with the other test_foo functions. When
I
On 10/03/2014 10:27 PM, Jeff King wrote:
For small outputs, we sometimes use:
test $(some_cmd) = something we expect
instead of a full test_cmp. The downside of this is that
when it fails, there is no output at all from the script.
Let's introduce a small helper to make tests easier to
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
I don't like the three-argument version of test_eq. Wouldn't using a
comparison operator other than = would be very confusing, given that
eq is in the name of the function? It also doesn't look like you use
this feature.
An alternative direction
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
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:29:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
...
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
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
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
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:35:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Yeah, if we are going to reduce it down to the above implementation,
intereseting things like test -f $frotz will become possible and
cmp-str stops making sense. It really is about We run test and
expect it to yield true.
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:35:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Yeah, if we are going to reduce it down to the above implementation,
intereseting things like test -f $frotz will become possible and
cmp-str stops making sense. It really is about We run test
On 10/07/2014 11:53 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:35:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Yeah, if we are going to reduce it down to the above implementation,
intereseting things like test -f $frotz will become possible and
cmp-str stops
For small outputs, we sometimes use:
test $(some_cmd) = something we expect
instead of a full test_cmp. The downside of this is that
when it fails, there is no output at all from the script.
Let's introduce a small helper to make tests easier to
debug.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King p...@peff.net
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
For small outputs, we sometimes use:
test $(some_cmd) = something we expect
instead of a full test_cmp. The downside of this is that
when it fails, there is no output at all from the script.
Let's introduce a small helper to make tests easier to
debug.
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:17:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
That's a bit verbose. We could hide it behind something like test_eq,
too, but it introduces several extra new processes.
What do you mean by extra new processes? Whether open coded in a
verbose way, or wrapped inside a
13 matches
Mail list logo
