Hi, I'm just cleaning up my inbox and I've seen I've not yet replied to your mail. Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Stephan Beyer wrote: > > > > > This option realizes a stupid hack that tries to run the test cases > > > > line by line (separated by &&). > > > > > > In what way is that better than "sh -x t????-*.sh"? > > > > Your suggestion is more like "./t????-*.sh -v" instead of -s, at least > > on bash and dash here. > > No, I meant without "-v". Me, too. I've written something different: "sh -x" is a great thing and does exactly what it should on simple scripts containing: foo && bar && baz But for a test case in the git test suite it does not work, unfortunately. (Tested on bash, dash and zsh.) The information I get from sh -x ./t????-*.sh is like the information I get from invoking ./t????-*.sh -v but less eye-pleasing. And ./t????-*.sh -s (using this patch) shows me something like: Testing: foo Testing: bar * FAIL: blabla So that I what *command* of the test case fails. But perhaps I am just doing something wrong. > > But I didn't know the -x flag and it seems that this could be used in > > test-lib.sh to make the hack faster, more robust and less hacky ;-) > > It would obsolete your hack, I suggest. Obviously, you haven't tried it > yet. The obvious is wrong. I would be very happy to obsolete my slow and error-prone hack, but currently I have not seen a good alternative. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@xxxxxxx>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F -- 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
