On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 23:42:13 -0400, Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu> wrote: > Great idea! > > Just a heads-up, this will conflict with the first two patches in the > atomicity series (though git may not detect the second conflict). > Both are trivial patches, though, so the merge should be easy. > Oh. I hope atomicity will be there soon. > Three minor comments below. > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Dmitry Kurochkin > <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is existing support for broken tests. But it is not convenient > > to use. The primary issue is that we have to maintain a set of > > test_expect_*_failure functions which are equivalent to the normal > > test_expect_* counterparts except for what functions are called for > > result reporting. The patch adds test_subtest_known_broken function > > which marks a subset as broken, making the normal test_expect_* > > functions behave as test_expect_*_failure. All test_expect_*_failure > > functions are removed. Test_known_broken_failure_ is changed to > > format details the same way as test_failure_ does. > > > > Another benefit of this change is that the diff when a broken test is > > fixed would be small and nice. > > > > Documentation is updated accordingly. > > --- > > test/README | 17 ++++++++--------- > > test/test-lib.sh | 53 +++++++++++++++-------------------------------------- > > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/test/README b/test/README > > index a245bf1..f926b9f 100644 > > --- a/test/README > > +++ b/test/README > > @@ -132,20 +132,19 @@ library for your script to use. > > <script>. If it yields success, test is considered > > successful. <message> should state what it is testing. > > > > - test_expect_failure <message> <script> > > - > > - This is NOT the opposite of test_expect_success, but is used > > - to mark a test that demonstrates a known breakage. Unlike > > - the usual test_expect_success tests, which say "ok" on > > - success and "FAIL" on failure, this will say "FIXED" on > > - success and "still broken" on failure. Failures from these > > - tests won't cause -i (immediate) to stop. > > - > > test_begin_subtest <message> > > > > Set the test description message for a subsequent test_expect_equal > > invocation (see below). > > > > + test_subtest_known_broken > > + > > + Mark the current test as broken. Such tests are expected to fail. > > + Unlike the normal tests, which say "PASS" on success and "FAIL" on > > + failure, these will say "FIXED" on success and "BROKEN" on failure. > > + Failures from these tests won't cause -i (immediate) to stop. This > > + must be called before any test_expect_* function. > > Perhaps "A test must call this before any test_expect_* function"? > There can be earlier test_expect_* calls from other tests. > makes sense > > + > > test_expect_equal <output> <expected> > > > > This is an often-used convenience function built on top of > > diff --git a/test/test-lib.sh b/test/test-lib.sh > > index 22e387e..0cd4170 100755 > > --- a/test/test-lib.sh > > +++ b/test/test-lib.sh > > @@ -424,6 +424,7 @@ test_begin_subtest () > > error "bug in test script: Missing test_expect_equal in ${BASH_SOURCE[1]}:${BASH_LINENO[0]}" > > fi > > test_subtest_name="$1" > > + test_subtest_known_broken_= > > # Remember stdout and stderr file descriptors and redirect test > > # output to the previously prepared file descriptors 3 and 4 (see > > # below) > > @@ -484,29 +485,6 @@ test_expect_equal_file () > > fi > > } > > > > -test_expect_equal_failure () > > -{ > > - exec 1>&6 2>&7 # Restore stdout and stderr > > - inside_subtest= > > - test "$#" = 3 && { prereq=$1; shift; } || prereq= > > - test "$#" = 2 || > > - error "bug in the test script: not 2 or 3 parameters to test_expect_equal" > > - > > - output="$1" > > - expected="$2" > > - if ! test_skip "$@" > > - then > > - if [ "$output" = "$expected" ]; then > > - test_known_broken_ok_ "$test_subtest_name" > > - else > > - test_known_broken_failure_ "$test_subtest_name" > > - testname=$this_test.$test_count > > - echo "$expected" > $testname.expected > > - echo "$output" > $testname.output > > - fi > > - fi > > -} > > - > > NOTMUCH_NEW () > > { > > notmuch new | grep -v -E -e '^Processed [0-9]*( total)? file|Found [0-9]* total file' > > @@ -568,12 +546,20 @@ test_have_prereq () { > > # the text_expect_* functions instead. > > > > test_ok_ () { > > + if [ "$test_subtest_known_broken_" = 1 ]; then > > + test_known_broken_ok_ "$@" > > + return > > + fi > > test_success=$(($test_success + 1)) > > say_color pass "%-6s" "PASS" > > echo " $@" > > } > > > > test_failure_ () { > > + if [ "$test_subtest_known_broken_" = 1 ]; then > > + test_known_broken_failure_ "$@" > > + return > > + fi > > test_failure=$(($test_failure + 1)) > > say_color error "%-6s" "FAIL" > > echo " $1" > > @@ -592,7 +578,10 @@ test_known_broken_ok_ () { > > test_known_broken_failure_ () { > > test_broken=$(($test_broken+1)) > > say_color pass "%-6s" "BROKEN" > > - echo " $@" > > + echo " $1" > > + shift > > + echo "$@" | sed -e 's/^/ /' > > + if test "$verbose" != "t"; then cat test.output; fi > > Would it be possible to keep just the one copy of the failure printing > code in test_failure_? > Sure, it is possible if I am not so lazy. > > } > > > > test_debug () { > > @@ -636,20 +625,8 @@ test_skip () { > > esac > > } > > > > -test_expect_failure () { > > - test "$#" = 3 && { prereq=$1; shift; } || prereq= > > - test "$#" = 2 || > > - error "bug in the test script: not 2 or 3 parameters to test-expect-failure" > > - if ! test_skip "$@" > > - then > > - test_run_ "$2" > > - if [ "$?" = 0 -a "$eval_ret" = 0 ] > > - then > > - test_known_broken_ok_ "$1" > > - else > > - test_known_broken_failure_ "$1" > > - fi > > - fi > > +test_subtest_known_broken () { > > + test_subtest_known_broken_=1 > > The convention in test-lib appears to be "t" for true variables. > Thanks for the hint. Will follow with an amend. Regards, Dmitry > > } > > > > test_expect_success () { > > -- > > 1.7.5.4