Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@xxxxxxx> writes: >> +test_expect_success $PREREQ "--validate hook supports header argument" ' >> + write_script my-hooks/sendemail-validate <<-\EOF && >> + if test -s "$2" >> + then >> + cat "$2" >actual >> + exit 1 >> + fi >> + EOF If "$2" is not given, or an empty "$2" is given, is that an error? I am wondering if the lack of "else" clause (and the hook exits with success when "$2" is an empty file) here is intentional. >> + cat actual | replace_variable_fields \ >> + >actual-headers && Do not cat a single file into a pipe. You can instead redirect out of the file to whatever is reading from the pipe. I.e. replace_variable_fields <actual >actual-headers && >> + test_cmp expected-headers actual-headers >> +' OK. We make sure the presence and the order of the fields in the output just like all the other tests in this file do (which I think may be a bit too much---there is no strong reason to insist that "Subject:" comes before or after "Date:" or is spelled "Subject:" and not "subject:" or "SUBJECT:"---but that is a problem shared with many other existing tests in this file and this patch is not making it much worse). >> for enc in 7bit 8bit quoted-printable base64 >> do >> test_expect_success $PREREQ "--transfer-encoding=$enc produces correct header" ' > > As Junio and I discussed in the v5 2/2 patch review, here we may want to > do something like this: Add a custom header to the SMTP envelope and then make > sure that that is present when the hook checks $2. Adding a custom header test is also fine, but I am OK with what we see above, to verify the headers just the same way as existing tests.
