"Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> diff --git a/t/helper/test-parse-pathspec-file.c b/t/helper/test-parse-pathspec-file.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..e7f525feb9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/helper/test-parse-pathspec-file.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
> +#include "test-tool.h"
> +#include "parse-options.h"
> +#include "pathspec.h"
> +#include "gettext.h"
> + ...
> + parse_pathspec_file(&pathspec, 0, 0, 0, pathspec_from_file,
> + pathspec_file_nul);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < pathspec.nr; i++) {
> + printf("%s\n", pathspec.items[i].original);
> + }
No need for {} around a single statement block.
> diff --git a/t/t0067-parse_pathspec_file.sh b/t/t0067-parse_pathspec_file.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000000..df7b319713
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t0067-parse_pathspec_file.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +test_description='Test parse_pathspec_file()'
> +
> +. ./test-lib.sh
> +
> +test_expect_success 'one item from stdin' '
> + echo fileA.t | test-tool parse-pathspec-file --pathspec-from-file=- >actual &&
> +
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> + fileA.t
> + EOF
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
The use of the blank lines are somewhat inconsistent here.
> + ...
> +test_expect_success 'NUL delimiters' '
> + printf "fileA.t\0fileB.t\0" | test-tool parse-pathspec-file --pathspec-from-file=- --pathspec-file-nul >actual &&
Fold line immediately after the pipe (same for the earlier and later ones).
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> + fileA.t
> + fileB.t
> + EOF
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
If you want to have a gap between the steps, i.e. "capturing the
actual output", "creating the ideal output", and "seeing how they
differ", using blank like this is OK:
printf "fileA.t\0fileB.t\0" |
test-tool parse-pathspec-file --pathspec-from-file=- --pathspec-file-nul >actual &&
cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
fileA.t
fileB.t
EOF
test_cmp expect actual
I thought we typically prepare the ideal output sample before
capturing the actual output, so if we follow that convention, the
above becomes
cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
fileA.t
fileB.t
EOF
printf "fileA.t\0fileB.t\0" |
test-tool parse-pathspec-file --pathspec-from-file=- --pathspec-file-nul >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual
> +test_expect_success 'quotes' '
> + # shell takes \\\\101 and spits \\101
> + # printf takes \\101 and spits \101
> + # git takes \101 and spits A
> + printf "\"file\\\\101.t\"" | test-tool parse-pathspec-file --pathspec-from-file=- >actual &&
> +
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> + fileA.t
> + EOF
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success '--pathspec-file-nul takes quotes literally' '
> + # shell takes \\\\101 and spits \\101
> + # printf takes \\101 and spits \101
> + printf "\"file\\\\101.t\"" | test-tool parse-pathspec-file --pathspec-from-file=- --pathspec-file-nul >actual &&
> +
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> + "file\101.t"
> + EOF
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
Testing low level machinery like this is of course a good idea, in
addition to the end-to-end tests that make sure that the machinery
is called correctly from the higher layer.
Thanks.
