Three months from last release was the 15th, and I've let it slip a little but should definitely get the next release out by the end of the month. So, trying to tie some things off and check them in.
One local diff I've got in my tree is I introduced the "testcmd" shell function to the test suite a while back, and was slowly converting things over, but I'm having second thoughts about it. The rationale is some commands are shell builtins, so if you just naive ly test "echo blah" it's not actually gonna call the one out of the $PATH, so you're not testing what you think you are. First I added a $C environment variable that's an absolute path to the command binary to test, but you need to quote it to use it properly because your path might have spaces in it. And if people add tests in an environment that doesn't have spaces in the path you extracted the toybox source into, it'll work fine and then break for somebody else later. (Whee!) So I added a "testcmd" function that starts your command line with "$C" and a space, so that instead of: testing "name" "command arguments" "output" "inputfile" "stdin" You just do testcmd "name" "arguments" "output" "inputfile" "stdin" The problem is some tests (such as the blkid ones) don't _start_ with the command name, but pipe the output of another command into stdin (in this case bzcat filename). So those still need to be "testing", not "testcmd", and I don't like having BOTH. I want this to be simple, and reality isn't cooperating. I'm not sure which is better: 1) Back out testcmd and use "$C" as needed. Advantage: one consistent syntax. Downside: spaces in pathnames if improperly quoted, will use shell builtin and _seem_ to work if you just use the name (but only sometimes, mostly that'll work too), lots of redundant "$C" expressed over and over without really needing to be. 2) Use testcmd where I can, and testing where I can't. Downside: two syntaxes being nonobviously different. Sigh. Maybe testcmd should have a different name? I don't want it to be significantly longer name because that leads to more wrapped lines.) This is another one of those "it's close enough there isn't an obvious solution". This is how academia winds up with endless squabbles over trivia, if there was a big difference it would be easily solvable. :P Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
