On 06/06/18 22:03, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 01:10:52PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > >> git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> +# As a sanity check, ask Python to parse our generated JSON. Let Python >>> +# recursively dump the resulting dictionary in sorted order. Confirm that >>> +# that matches our expectations. >>> +test_expect_success PYTHON 'parse JSON using Python' ' >> [...] >>> + python "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t0019/parse_json_1.py <output.json >actual && >> >> Would this be better using $PYTHON_PATH rather than >> hard-coding python as the command? > > Probably. We may want to go the same route as we did for perl in > a0e0ec9f7d (t: provide a perl() function which uses $PERL_PATH, > 2013-10-28) so that test writers don't have to remember this. > > That said, I wonder if it would be hard to simply do the python bits > here in perl. This is the first use of python in our test scripts (and Hmm, not quite the _first_ use: $ git grep PYTHON_PATH -- t t/lib-git-p4.sh: (cd / && "$PYTHON_PATH" -c 'import time; print(int(time.time()))') t/lib-git-p4.sh: "$PYTHON_PATH" "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/marshal-dump.py" t/t9020-remote-svn.sh:export PATH PYTHON_PATH GIT_BUILD_DIR t/t9020-remote-svn.sh:exec "$PYTHON_PATH" "$GIT_BUILD_DIR/contrib/svn-fe/svnrdump_sim.py" "$@" t/t9802-git-p4-filetype.sh: "$PYTHON_PATH" "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/k_smush.py" <"$cli/k-text-k" >cli-k-text-k-smush && t/t9802-git-p4-filetype.sh: "$PYTHON_PATH" "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/ko_smush.py" <"$cli/k-text-ko" >cli-k-text-ko-smush && t/t9802-git-p4-filetype.sh: "$PYTHON_PATH" "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/gendouble.py" >%double.png && t/t9810-git-p4-rcs.sh: "$PYTHON_PATH" "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/scrub_k.py" <"$git/$file" >"$scrub" && t/t9810-git-p4-rcs.sh: "$PYTHON_PATH" "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/scrub_ko.py" <"$git/$file" >"$scrub" && $ I don't run the p4 or svn tests, so ... :-D > really the only user in the whole code base outside of a few fringe > commands). Leaving aside any perl vs python flame-war, I think there's > value in keeping the number of languages limited when there's not a > compelling reason to do otherwise. I agree that fewer languages is (generally) a good idea. ATB, Ramsay Jones
