On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 17:39, Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Heya, > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 19:16, Ãvar ArnfjÃrà Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> converted that code to use an external test similar no the TODO test I > > s/no/to/ Thanks, fixed. >> +cat >expect <<EOF && >> +not ok - 1 tests clean up even after a failure >> +# >> +#     Âtouch clean-after-failure && >> +#     Âtest_when_finished rm clean-after-failure && >> +#     Â(exit 1) >> +# >> +not ok - 2 failure to clean up causes the test to fail >> +# >> +#     Âtest_when_finished \"(exit 2)\" >> +# >> +# failed 2 among 2 test(s) >> +1..2 >> +EOF >> +  Âtest_cmp expect out) > > I still like the putting-the-code-in-a-separate-harness, but I'm > wondering if we can't come up with something better than comparing > with test output that could change in the future... unless we decide > to standardize on TAP and not deviate from it? Since t0000-basic.sh is the sanity test for the test-lib.sh itself having at least some comparison of output is a good thing. It's a nice sanity check in case something ends up changing it. It's easy to change it if we change the output, but at least we'll be testing for it explicitly. > Either case, wouldn't it at least be a good idea to get rid of the > parts after the # in the comparrison? I thought it was simplest to just compare the complete output. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html