On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 07:04:52PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:22:46AM +, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
>
> > A minor comment from outside observer: running tests under something
> > like
> >
> > -e and -o pipefail
> >
> > would automatically catch the mistake in the fir
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:22:46AM +, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> A minor comment from outside observer: running tests under something
> like
>
> -e and -o pipefail
>
> would automatically catch the mistake in the first place. Maybe `-o
> pipefail` is bashism (I had not checked), but `git
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:47:21PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> The test 'pack-objects to file can use bitmap' added in 645c432d61
> (pack-objects: use reachability bitmap index when generating
> non-stdout pack, 2016-09-10) is silently buggy and doesn't check what
> it's supposed to.
>
> In 't5310
I would encourage use of an existing function to check for emptiness,
but require a particular argument for it to be considered "the right
way:"
test_cmp /dev/null actual
This means less vocabulary to memorize for test writers. It's usually a
code smell to have special logic for a specific value
Jeff King writes:
>> > If we assume that "expect" is first (which is our convention but not
>> > necessarily guaranteed), then I think the best logic is something like:
>> >
>> > if $1 is empty; then
>> > bug in the test script
>> > elif test_cmp_allow_empty "$@"
>> > test failure
>>
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 11:37:59PM +0200, Andrei Rybak wrote:
> On 19/08/18 22:32, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 07:50:42PM +0200, Andrei Rybak wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Check both files at the same time (combination with Gábor's
> >> function):
> >>
> >>test_cmp () {
> >>
On 19/08/18 22:32, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 07:50:42PM +0200, Andrei Rybak wrote:
>
>> 1. Check both files at the same time (combination with Gábor's
>> function):
>>
>> test_cmp () {
>> if test "$1" != - &&
>> test "$2" != - &&
>>
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 07:50:42PM +0200, Andrei Rybak wrote:
> > I actually think the above gives way too confusing output, when the
> > actual output is empty and we are expecting some output.
> >
> > The tester wants to hear from test_cmp "your 'git cmd' produced some
> > output when we are ex
On 17/08/18 22:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrei Rybak writes:
>>
>> I'll try something like the following on the weekend:
>>
>> test_cmp () {
>> if test "$1" != - && ! test -s "$1"
>> then
>> echo >&4 "error: trying to compare empty file '$1'"
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 9:27 PM Andrei Rybak wrote:
>
> On 17/08/18 19:39, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >
> > See, we have quite a few tests that extract repetitive common tasks
> > into helper functions, which sometimes includes preparing the expected
> > results and running 'test_cmp', e.g. something l
Andrei Rybak writes:
> I think it would be a good trade-off to allow these helper functions to skip
> checking emptiness of arguments for test_cmp. Such patch will require only
> s/test_cmp/&_allow_empty/ for these helper functions and it will help catch
> cases as bogus test in t5310.
>
> I'll t
On 17/08/18 19:39, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> See, we have quite a few tests that extract repetitive common tasks
> into helper functions, which sometimes includes preparing the expected
> results and running 'test_cmp', e.g. something like this
> (oversimplified) example:
>
> check_cmd () {
>
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:36 AM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Andrei Rybak writes:
>
> > On 14/08/18 13:47, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >> ... both
> >> invocations produce empty 'pack{a,b}.objects' files, and the
> >> subsequent 'test_cmp' happily finds those two empty files identical.
> >
> > Is test_cm
Andrei Rybak writes:
> On 14/08/18 13:47, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>> ... both
>> invocations produce empty 'pack{a,b}.objects' files, and the
>> subsequent 'test_cmp' happily finds those two empty files identical.
>
> Is test_cmp ever used for empty files? Would it make sense for
> test_cmp to issue
On 14/08/18 13:47, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> ... both
> invocations produce empty 'pack{a,b}.objects' files, and the
> subsequent 'test_cmp' happily finds those two empty files identical.
Is test_cmp ever used for empty files? Would it make sense for
test_cmp to issue warning when an empty file is bei
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:47:21PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> The test 'pack-objects to file can use bitmap' added in 645c432d61
> (pack-objects: use reachability bitmap index when generating
> non-stdout pack, 2016-09-10) is silently buggy and doesn't check what
> it's supposed to.
>
> In 't53
The test 'pack-objects to file can use bitmap' added in 645c432d61
(pack-objects: use reachability bitmap index when generating
non-stdout pack, 2016-09-10) is silently buggy and doesn't check what
it's supposed to.
In 't5310-pack-bitmaps.sh', the 'list_packed_objects' helper function
does what it
17 matches
Mail list logo
