On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 01:09:22AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> Change the usage of the "test-tool progress" introduced in
> 2bb74b53a49 (Test the progress display, 2019-09-16) to take command
> like "start" and "stop" on stdin, instead of running them implicitly.
>
> This makes for tests that are easier to read, since the recipe will
> mirror the API usage, and allows for easily testing invalid usage that
> would yield (or should yield) a BUG(), e.g. providing two "start"
> calls in a row. A subsequent commit will add such stress tests.
Ok. So this is just a readability change, and not a functional change to
the helper, for now.
Or so I thought, but I was surprised to see the usage changing and the
total count moving to stdin. I don't think that's a bad change but the
commit message doesn't mention it in a way that I expected to see it in
the diff.
> diff --git a/t/helper/test-progress.c b/t/helper/test-progress.c
> index 5d05cbe7894..685c0a7c49a 100644
> --- a/t/helper/test-progress.c
> +++ b/t/helper/test-progress.c
> @@ -22,31 +26,41 @@
>
> int cmd__progress(int argc, const char **argv)
> {
> - int total = 0;
> - const char *title;
> + const char *default_title = "Working hard";
> + char *detached_title = NULL;
> struct strbuf line = STRBUF_INIT;
> - struct progress *progress;
> + struct progress *progress = NULL;
>
> const char *usage[] = {
> - "test-tool progress [--total=<n>] <progress-title>",
> + "test-tool progress <stdin",
> NULL
> };
> struct option options[] = {
> - OPT_INTEGER(0, "total", &total, "total number of items"),
> OPT_END(),
> };
>
> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, NULL, options, usage, 0);
> - if (argc != 1)
> - die("need a title for the progress output");
> - title = argv[0];
> + if (argc)
> + usage_with_options(usage, options);
Ok. We lose the args entirely, moving them to stdin lines, and that
cleans up the usage() check. Nice.
> progress_testing = 1;
> - progress = start_progress(title, total);
Getting rid of the implied start. Ok.
> while (strbuf_getline(&line, stdin) != EOF) {
> char *end;
>
> - if (skip_prefix(line.buf, "progress ", (const char **) &end)) {
> + if (!strcmp(line.buf, "start")) {
> + progress = start_progress(default_title, 0);
'start' with no args...
> + } else if (skip_prefix(line.buf, "start ", (const char **) &end)) {
'start 1234'...
Would it be more readable to use strbuf_split_buf() here instead? Maybe
it doesn't fix the need for strtoull() but it could make the parsing
clearer. I did have to think about this one for a bit.
> + uint64_t total = strtoull(end, &end, 10);
> + if (*end == '\0') {
> + progress = start_progress(default_title, total);
> + } else if (*end == ' ') {
'start 1234 lorem ipsum dolor'. Ok.
> + free(detached_title);
> + detached_title = strbuf_detach(&line, NULL);
> + progress = start_progress(end + 1, total);
> + } else {
> + die("invalid input: '%s'\n", line.buf);
> + }
I wondered why we had to do all this title parsing from scratch now when
we didn't before, but I guess it's because we don't get a nicely
allocated argv[0]. Ok.
> + } else if (skip_prefix(line.buf, "progress ", (const char **) &end)) {
> uint64_t item_count = strtoull(end, &end, 10);
> if (*end != '\0')
> die("invalid input: '%s'\n", line.buf);
> @@ -63,12 +77,15 @@ int cmd__progress(int argc, const char **argv)
> die("invalid input: '%s'\n", line.buf);
> progress_test_ns = test_ms * 1000 * 1000;
> display_throughput(progress, byte_count);
> - } else if (!strcmp(line.buf, "update"))
> + } else if (!strcmp(line.buf, "update")) {
> progress_test_force_update();
> - else
> + } else if (!strcmp(line.buf, "stop")) {
> + stop_progress(&progress);
> + } else {
And 'stop' doesn't take any args. Ok. Do you need the {}?
> die("invalid input: '%s'\n", line.buf);
> + }
> }
> - stop_progress(&progress);
> + free(detached_title);
>
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/t/t0500-progress-display.sh b/t/t0500-progress-display.sh
> index 22058b503ac..ca96ac1fa55 100755
> --- a/t/t0500-progress-display.sh
> +++ b/t/t0500-progress-display.sh
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ test_expect_success 'simple progress display' '
> EOF
>
> cat >in <<-\EOF &&
> + start 0
Does it need the total arg?
> update
> progress 1
> update
> @@ -88,16 +92,15 @@ Working hard.......2.........3.........4.........5.........6:
> EOF
>
> cat >in <<-\EOF &&
> - update
Was it intended to drop the 'update' line here? Does this not change the
content of the test?
> + start 100000 Working hard.......2.........3.........4.........5.........6
> progress 1
> update
> progress 2
> progress 10000
> progress 100000
> + stop
> EOF
> - test-tool progress --total=100000 \
> - "Working hard.......2.........3.........4.........5.........6" \
> - <in 2>stderr &&
> + test-tool progress <in 2>stderr &&
>
> show_cr <stderr >out &&
> test_cmp expect out
With whichever nits seem appropriate,
Reviewed-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
