On 22/04/18 16:22, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Ramsay Jones > <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 21/04/18 17:56, Duy Nguyen wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 06:54:08PM +0200, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: >>>> Changes: >>>> >>>> - remove the deprecated column in command-list.txt. My change break it >>>> anyway if anyone uses it. >>>> - fix up failed tests that I marked in the RFC and kinda forgot about it. >>>> - fix bashisms in generate-cmdlist.sh >>>> - fix segfaul in "git help" >>> >>> Sorry I forgot the interdiff >>> >> [snip] >> >>> diff --git a/t/t0012-help.sh b/t/t0012-help.sh >>> index fd2a7f27dc..53208ab20e 100755 >>> --- a/t/t0012-help.sh >>> +++ b/t/t0012-help.sh >>> @@ -25,6 +25,15 @@ test_expect_success "setup" ' >>> EOF >>> ' >>> >>> +# make sure to exercise these code paths, the output is a bit tricky >>> +# to verify >>> +test_expect_success 'basic help commands' ' >>> + git help >/dev/null && >>> + git help -a >/dev/null && >>> + git help -g >/dev/null && >>> + git help -av >/dev/null >>> +' >>> + >> I think you need to try a little harder than this! ;-) > > Yeah. I did think about grepping the output but decided not to because > of gettext poison stuff and column output in "git help". If we do want > to test this, how about I extend --list-cmds= option to take a few > more parameters? --list-cmds=common would output all common commands, > --list-cmds=<category> does the same for other command category. This > way we can verify without worrying about text formatting, paging or > translation. Hmm, my immediate reaction would be to prefer my simple tests. Yes, they are not exactly rigorous and they would be affected by changing the help formatting, but they are effective. ;-) [I don't think the formatting would change that often, or at all - whoever submits that patch would get to update the tests!] What did you think about adding the BUG() checks? ATB, Ramsay Jones
