On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Include tests to check for multiple levels of quiet and to check if the > '--no-quiet' option sets it to 0. As this patch is also adding a test of --[no-]verbose, the commit message should mention it. More below... > Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > diff --git a/t/t0040-parse-options.sh b/t/t0040-parse-options.sh > @@ -476,4 +476,61 @@ test_expect_success '--no-list resets list' ' > +test_expect_success 'multiple quiet levels' ' > + test-parse-options -q -q -q >output 2>output.err && > + test_must_be_empty output.err && > + test_cmp expect output > +' > + > +test_expect_success '--no-quiet sets quiet to 0' ' > + test-parse-options -q -q -q --no-quiet >output 2>output.err && > + test_must_be_empty output.err && > + test_cmp expect output > +' It wouldn't hurt to have two tests for --no-quiet: one which tests --no-quiet alone to ensure that 'quiet' *remains* at 0, and one which tests --no-quiet in combination with some --quiet's to ensure that 'quiet' is *reset* to 0. These tests would give you good coverage for changes by subsequent patches, such as the OPTION_COUNTUP patch which flips the initial value to -1. > + > +test_expect_success '--no-verbose sets verbose to 0' ' > + test-parse-options --no-verbose >output 2> output.err && > + test_must_be_empty output.err && > + test_cmp expect output > +' One would expect to see 'verbose' get the same treatment of having a test invoke --verbose multiple times. (Yes, I realize that the "long options" test does just this, but testing multiple --verbose's is not its primary purpose, so having a test which does test multiple --verbose's as its primary purpose can be beneficial and is less likely to be broken by someone in the future.) -- 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