On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:54:02 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
functionality.
`test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
fails and
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:54:02 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
> functionality.
>
> `test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
> evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
> fails and the
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:54:02 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
> functionality.
>
> `test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
> evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
> fails and the
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:54:02 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
functionality.
`test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
fails and
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:42:31 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:32:21 +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> > Consider the following:
> >
> > $ emacsclient --eval '(print "$(echo rm -rf /); echo `date +%Y`")'
> > "$(echo rm -rf /); echo `date +%Y`"
>
> Or:
>
> $ emacsclient --eval
Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
functionality.
`test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
fails and the output is reported to the tester.
---
In the interest of moving forward,
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:59:16 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:55:59 +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> > > + # Report success/failure.
> > > + if ! test_skip "$test_subtest_name"
> > > + then
> > > + if [ "$result" == t ]
> >
> > if [ "$result" = t ]
> >
> >
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:32:21 +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> Consider the following:
>
> $ emacsclient --eval '(print "$(echo rm -rf /); echo `date +%Y`")'
> "$(echo rm -rf /); echo `date +%Y`"
Or:
$ emacsclient --eval '(shell-command "rm -rf /")'
What's your point?
-- next part
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:55:59 +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> > + # Report success/failure.
> > + if ! test_skip "$test_subtest_name"
> > + then
> > + if [ "$result" == t ]
>
> if [ "$result" = t ]
>
> to be compatible with POSIX and consistent with rest code.
I'm
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:55:59 +0200, Tomi Ollila tomi.oll...@iki.fi wrote:
+ # Report success/failure.
+ if ! test_skip $test_subtest_name
+ then
+ if [ $result == t ]
if [ $result = t ]
to be compatible with POSIX and consistent with rest code.
I'm
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:59:16 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:55:59 +0200, Tomi Ollila tomi.oll...@iki.fi wrote:
+ # Report success/failure.
+ if ! test_skip $test_subtest_name
+ then
+ if [ $result == t ]
if [ $result = t ]
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:42:31 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:32:21 +0200, Tomi Ollila tomi.oll...@iki.fi wrote:
Consider the following:
$ emacsclient --eval '(print $(echo rm -rf /); echo `date +%Y`)'
$(echo rm -rf /); echo `date +%Y`
Or:
$
Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
functionality.
`test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
fails and the output is reported to the tester.
---
In the interest of moving forward,
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:07:03 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
> functionality.
>
> `test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
> evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
> fails and the
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:09:22 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:49:36 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote:
> > > + # We cannot call 'test_emacs' in a subshell, because
> > > + # the setting of EMACS_SERVER would not persist
> > > + # throughout a
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:09:22 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:49:36 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote:
+ # We cannot call 'test_emacs' in a subshell, because
+ # the setting of EMACS_SERVER would not persist
+
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:07:03 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
functionality.
`test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
fails and
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:35:07 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:26:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, I still do not understand why we can not implement
> > test_emacs_expect_t() like:
> >
> > result=${test_emacs $@}
> > test_expect_equal $result t
>
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:07:03 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
> functionality.
>
> `test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
> evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
> fails and the
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:49:36 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> > + # We cannot call 'test_emacs' in a subshell, because
> > + # the setting of EMACS_SERVER would not persist
> > + # throughout a sequence of tests, so we use a
> > + # temporary file.
> > +
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:26:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> Sorry, I still do not understand why we can not implement
> test_emacs_expect_t() like:
>
> result=${test_emacs $@}
> test_expect_equal $result t
>
> Can you please explain?
In the failure case test_expect_equal does:
Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
functionality.
`test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
fails and the output is reported to the tester.
---
Re-worked as Dmitry suggested.
Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
functionality.
`test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
fails and the output is reported to the tester.
---
Re-worked as Dmitry suggested.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:07:03 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Add a new test function to allow simpler testing of emacs
functionality.
`test_emacs_expect_t' takes one argument - a list expression to
evaluate. The test passes if the expression returns `t', otherwise it
fails and
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:26:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I still do not understand why we can not implement
test_emacs_expect_t() like:
result=${test_emacs $@}
test_expect_equal $result t
Can you please explain?
In the failure case
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:35:07 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:26:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I still do not understand why we can not implement
test_emacs_expect_t() like:
result=${test_emacs $@}
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:49:36 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote:
+ # We cannot call 'test_emacs' in a subshell, because
+ # the setting of EMACS_SERVER would not persist
+ # throughout a sequence of tests, so we use a
+ #
27 matches
Mail list logo
