On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Jeff King wrote:
>
> > For small outputs, we sometimes use:
> >
> > test "$(some_cmd)" = "something we expect"
> >
> > instead of a full test_cmp. The downside of this is that
> > when it fails, there is no output at all from the script.
>
> There's another downside to that construct: it loses the exit
> status from some_cmd.
Yes, although I think in many cases it's not a big deal. For example,
here we lose the exit code of count-objects, but it also is very
unlikely to fail _and_ produce our expected output.
> Alternatively, maybe there could be a helper in the same spirit as
> test_cmp_rev?
>
> test_object_count () {
> git count-objects >output &&
> sed "s/ .*//" output >count &&
> printf "%s\n" "$1" >expect &&
> test_cmp expect count
> }
One of my goals was to provide a more generic helper so that we don't
have to make little helpers like this for every command. So I'd much
rather something like:
test_output () {
printf "%s\n" "$1" >expect &&
shift &&
"$@" >output &&
test_cmp expect output
}
The "\n" handling there feels a little hacky, but is probably OK in
practice (the few commands that really do generate an output without a
newline can use test_cmp manually). It should probably also "rm" the
files on success to avoid polluting the working tree.
It also doesn't help cases that want to do "test $foo -lt 3" or other
non-equality checks. But those are probably the minority.
I dunno. I am OK with what I posted, but if we feel strongly about
testing the exit code, I can re-roll as test_output as above.
-Peff
--
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