On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:16 PM Matheus Tavares Bernardino
<matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> wrote:
> With that said, I'm wondering now whether we should change the
> function's signature from:
>
> `check_config [expect_code <code>] <cmd> <key> <expected_value>`
>
> to:
>
> `check_config <cmd> <key> <expected_value>`
> `check_config expect_not_found <cmd> <key> <value>`
>
> The second form would then automatically expect exit code 1 and check
> stdout for the message 'Value not found for "<value>"'. With this we
> can avoid wrong uses of check_config to check an arbitrary error code
> without also checking stderr.
Yes, that seems more straightforward. In fact, at this point, you
could just have two distinct functions and eliminate the ugly
complexity of the existing check_config() implementation. Perhaps
something like this (typed in email):
check_config () {
test_tool config "$1" "$2" >actual &&
shift && shift &&
printf "%s\n" "$@" >expect &&
test_cmp expect actual
}
check_not_found () {
test_expect_code 1 test_tool config "$1" "$2" >actual &&
echo "Value not found for \"$2\"" >expect &&
test_cmp expect actual
}
