On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:26:58AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mike Hommey <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Brown paper bag fix to avoid test failure with retarded sed. The test > > by itself didn't catch what it was supposed to, anyways. > > I'd rather not to say "retarded sed". It is not fair to blame > the implementation when the script we feed to it is not > portable. > > > test_expect_success \ > > 'message in editor has initial comment' ' > > GIT_EDITOR=cat git tag -a initial-comment > actual || true && > > - test $(sed -n "/^\(#\|\$\)/p" actual | wc -l) -gt 0 > > + grep -e "^$" actual > /dev/null 2>&1 && > > + grep -e "^#" actual > /dev/null 2>&1 && > > + ! grep -e "^[^#]" actual > /dev/null 2>&1 > > The test simulates a case where > > $ git tag -a initial-comment > > is run and the user exits the editor without editing the file to > add any text to annotate the tag. The behaviour we want from > such an invocation is (1) the user sees a sensible template in > the editor, and (2) the command to error out, saying "Hey, you > did not leave any message for us to use". > > So the earlier part of the test > > GIT_EDITOR=cat git tag -a initial-comment > actual || true && > > is already bogus with respect to the latter point. It will > happily continue if "git tag" erroneously returns success, and > the above does not catch it. > > if GIT_EDITOR=cat git tag -a initial-comment >actual > then > echo >&2 oops we should have errored out > false > else > : happy -- anything else we want to check? > fi This should probably be tested in another test block. > The "actual" file contains what the user saw in the editor and > returned to the "git tag" command. > > The template we give to the user begins with a blank line, > followed by a brief instruction "write a tag message" as > comments to be stripped. The test is trying to make sure that > is what was given to the user. As you already discussed in the > thread, the exact wording may change in the future and we would > not want to adjust the test every time. > > I think the important points about this template are: > > * It begins with a single blank line, where the invoked editor > would typically place the editing curser at so that the user > can immediately start typing; > > * It has some instruction but that comes after that initial > blank line, all lines prefixed with "#". I do not think we > would want to check the wording of this instruction. > > * And it has nothing else, as the expected behaviour is "Hey > you did not leave any message". Which is roughly what my patch does, except it doesn't check for ordering. Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
