On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:28:41PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> > So this fix looks fine. It might be worth a comment above the creation
> > of expect_cookies.txt to mention it must be in sorted order (of course
> > anybody modifying it would see a test failure).
>
> I thought about running the expect_cookies.txt file through
> sort as well. That would ensure that both files were using
> the same sorting. Whether that's needed on any platform
> now, I don't know. Maybe that would be a useful way to
> protect against future edits to the expect_cookies.txt file
> catching the editor?
Yes, I think sorting the expect file would work fine. I'm OK with that,
or just leaving a comment. The comment has the bonus that it does not
cost an extra process at runtime. I'd probably use a sort if we expected
the list to be long and complicated, since it makes life easier on a
future developer. But since there are only 2 lines, I don't think it's a
big deal either way (or even just leaving it as-is without a comment is
probably OK).
> I thought there might be a test function to sort the output,
> but I was (incorrectly) thinking of check_access_log() which
> Gábor added in e8b3b2e275 ("t/lib-httpd: avoid occasional
> failures when checking access.log", 2018-07-12).
>
> Perhaps it would be useful to have a test_cmp_sorted() to do
> the simple dance of sorting the actual & expected. I
> haven't looked through the tests to see how often such a
> function might be useful.
I suspect it would occasionally be useful, but I don't recall it coming
up all that often.
-Peff
