On Thu, Apr 08 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Add the missing tests for the --bool-or-str code added in
>> dbd8c09bfe (mergetool: allow auto-merge for meld to follow the
>> vim-diff behavior, 2020-05-07).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> t/t1300-config.sh | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t1300-config.sh b/t/t1300-config.sh
>> index e0dd5d65ce..a002ec5644 100755
>> --- a/t/t1300-config.sh
>> +++ b/t/t1300-config.sh
>> @@ -802,6 +802,78 @@ test_expect_success 'get --bool-or-int' '
>> test_cmp expect actual
>> '
>>
>> +test_expect_success 'get --bool-or-str' '
>> + cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
>> + [bool]
>> + true1
>> + true2 = true
>> + true3 = TRUE
>> + true4 = yes
>> + true5 = YES
>> + true6 = on
>> + true7 = ON
>> + false1 =
>> + false2 = false
>> + false3 = FALSE
>> + false4 = no
>> + false5 = NO
>> + false6 = off
>> + false7 = OFF
>> + [int]
>> + int1 = 0
>> + int2 = 1
>> + int3 = -1
>> + [string]
>> + string1 = hello
>> + string2 = there you
>> + EOF
>
> That's fairly complete set (but misses common permutations like
> "Yes"). I am not sure, if we try "true" and "TRUE", if it is worth
> to check yes/YES and others, but at the same time, I do not know if
> reducing the permutations tested would improve the readability,
> runtime and/or maintainability of the test.
Sure, I was trying to do just enough to cover strcasecmp(). I don't
think we need to do black-box testing here.
>> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
>> + true
>> + true
>> + true
>> + true
>> + true
>> + true
>> + true
>> + false
>> + false
>> + false
>> + false
>> + false
>> + false
>> + false
>> + false
>> + false
>> + true
>> + true
>> + hello
>> + there you
>> + EOF
>
> The "right answer" is hard to read and maintain. Can we immediately
> spot what happened to int.int3 in this output, for example?
>
> Perhaps with something like
>
> inspect_config () {
> name=$1
> shift
> printf "%s %s\n" $(git config "$@" "$name") "$name"
> }
>
> we can make these lines to say
>
> int.int1 false
> int.int2 true
> int.int3 true
> string.string1 hello
> string.string2 there you
>
> to make them easier to follow? Without such a hint, I would expect
> that a failure output from test_cmp at the end would be very hard to
> grok, especially with so many permutations tested that produces runs
> of "true" and "false".
It's a general established pattern in t1300-config.sh used by several
other existing tests, e.g. the one for bool, path etc. I'd rather not
get into a general refactoring of that file.
>> + {
>> + git config --type=bool-or-str bool.true1 &&
>> + git config --bool-or-str bool.true2 &&
>
> This is a bit curious. We do not do full permutation between
> --type=bool-or-str and --bool-or-str here. We just check both
> would work only once. Feels a bit inconsistent.
Yeah, I was just trying to stick a --type=X v.s. --X test somewhere. I
can add it to another test_expect_success or something.
> My gut-feeling vote is to just try true/TRUE for case insensitivity
> and try all the other variants in lowercase, but I can go with the
> full permutation if you strongly prefer it.
>
>> ...
>> + git config --bool-or-str int.int1 &&
>> + git config --bool-or-str int.int2 &&
>> + git config --bool-or-str int.int3 &&
>> + git config --bool-or-str string.string1 &&
>> + git config --bool-or-str string.string2
>> + } >actual &&
>> + test_cmp expect actual
>> +'
>
> Thanks.
