Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
> In some cases it makes sense to loop around test cases so that we can
> execute the same test with slightly different arguments. There are some
> gotchas around quoting here though that are easy to miss and that may
> lead to easy-to-miss errors and portability issues.
>
> Document the proper way to do this in "t/README".
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
> ---
> t/README | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/README b/t/README
> index 36463d0742..d56401a254 100644
> --- a/t/README
> +++ b/t/README
> @@ -721,6 +721,25 @@ The "do's:"
> Note that we still &&-chain the loop to propagate failures from
> earlier commands.
>
> + - Repeat tests with slightly different arguments in a loop.
> +
> + In some cases it may make sense to re-run the same set of tests with
> + different options or commands to ensure that the command behaves
> + despite the different parameters. This can be achieved by looping
> + around a specific parameter:
> +
> + for arg in '' "--foo"
> + do
> + test_expect_success "test command ${arg:-without arguments}" '
> + command $arg
> + '
> + done
> +
> + Note that while the test title uses double quotes ("), the test body
> + should continue to use single quotes ('). The loop variable will be
> + accessible regardless of the single quotes as the test body is passed
> + to `eval`.
We also want to say that they are not equivalent, don't we?
for var in '' a 'b"c'
do
test_expect_success "with dq <$var>" "
echo \"$var\"
"
done
breaks, but if we use
test_expect_success "with sq <$var>" '
echo "$var"
'
in the loop, it works as expected.
Other than that, all three patches do make sense.
Thanks.
