Re: [PATCH v15 3/7] t0040-parse-options: improve test coverage

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Will include this in commit message.

>
> 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.

Will add them

>> +
>> +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.)

Sure. Having another test dedicated wouldn't hurt.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]