[PATCH 1/2] test: add check for filename argument for test_expect_equal_file

2012-10-18 Thread Tomi Ollila
On Fri, Oct 12 2012, Ethan Glasser-Camp wrote: > Dmitry Kurochkin writes: > >> Actually, we can do both: check file name for consistent diff order >> (from expected to actual) and use file names that the caller provides. > > Hi! Reviewing the patch queue a little bit here. It seems like this >

[PATCH 1/2] test: add check for filename argument for test_expect_equal_file

2012-10-12 Thread Ethan Glasser-Camp
Dmitry Kurochkin writes: > Actually, we can do both: check file name for consistent diff order > (from expected to actual) and use file names that the caller provides. Hi! Reviewing the patch queue a little bit here. It seems like this patch ended up getting dropped because the other approach

[PATCH 1/2] test: add check for filename argument for test_expect_equal_file

2012-02-04 Thread Tomi Ollila
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:04:05 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:00:59 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote: > > Hey, Dmitry. I'm so sorry I sent my last email on your original patch > > before I saw this new series. I do now like your original proposal > >

[PATCH 1/2] test: add check for filename argument for test_expect_equal_file

2012-02-03 Thread Dmitry Kurochkin
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:00:59 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > Hey, Dmitry. I'm so sorry I sent my last email on your original patch > before I saw this new series. I do now like your original proposal > better, since it shows the diff based the names the caller provides, > which I now

[PATCH 1/2] test: add check for filename argument for test_expect_equal_file

2012-02-03 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:04:05 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > Actually, we can do both: check file name for consistent diff order > (from expected to actual) and use file names that the caller provides. > > What do you think? I'm not sure it's worth it, but I suppose that's fine. jamie.

[PATCH 1/2] test: add check for filename argument for test_expect_equal_file

2012-02-03 Thread Dmitry Kurochkin
Hi Jameson. On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:00:59 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > Hey, Dmitry. I'm so sorry I sent my last email on your original patch > before I saw this new series. No problems. > I do now like your original proposal > better, since it shows the diff based the names the

[PATCH 1/2] test: add check for filename argument for test_expect_equal_file

2012-02-02 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
Hey, Dmitry. I'm so sorry I sent my last email on your original patch before I saw this new series. I do now like your original proposal better, since it shows the diff based the names the caller provides, which I now agree is probably the clearest and most robust solution. The second patch in

[PATCH 1/2] test: add check for filename argument for test_expect_equal_file

2012-02-02 Thread Dmitry Kurochkin
Test_expect_equal_file() function treats the first argument as "actual output file" and the second argument as "expected output file". When the test fails, the files are copied for later inspection. The first files is copied to "$testname.output" and the second file to "$testname.expected". The