On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 05:59:46PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > diff --git a/t/Makefile b/t/Makefile
> > @@ -106,18 +106,28 @@ clean: clean-except-prove-cache
> > + for i in $$(grep -L "'" $(CHAINLINTTESTS_SRC)); do \
> > + echo "test_expect_success '$$i' - <<\\\\EOT" && \
> > + sed -e '/^# LINT: /d' $$i && \
> > + echo "EOT"; \
> > + done >>'$(CHAINLINTTMP_SQ)'/tests && \
>
> Unfortunately, `grep -L` is not POSIX.
Yeah, this was just for illustration. Even if it were portable, I don't
think it's a good direction. :)
> > 1. Move the test_expect_success wrapping lines into each
> > chainlint/*.test file. It's a little bit of extra boilerplate, but
> > it makes them a bit easier to reason about on their own.
>
> Yes. This is exactly what I had in mind for moving forward. It's just
> a one-time noise-patch cost but gives us much more flexibility in
> terms of testing.
>
> It also makes spot-testing the chainlint self-test files much simpler.
> We would be able to do this:
>
> ./chainlint.pl chainlint/block.test
>
> rather than much more painful:
>
> { echo "test_expect_success foo '" && cat chainlint/block.test &&
> echo "'"; } >dummy && ./chainlint.pl dummy; rm dummy
Oh, nice. Having just written new chainlint tests, this made checking
them _way_ easier.
> > 2. Add a few new tests that use here-docs with a few variations
> > ("<<EOT", "<<\EOT", probably a here-doc inside the test here-doc).
> >
> > Does that sound OK to you?
>
> Absolutely. I'm very much in favor of these changes.
Great! I have patches which I'll send out in a moment.
-Peff
