git-commit-vandalism/t/test-lib.sh

393 lines
8.1 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2005 Junio C Hamano
#
# For repeatability, reset the environment to known value.
LANG=C
LC_ALL=C
PAGER=cat
TZ=UTC
export LANG LC_ALL PAGER TZ
EDITOR=:
VISUAL=:
unset GIT_EDITOR
unset AUTHOR_DATE
unset AUTHOR_EMAIL
unset AUTHOR_NAME
unset COMMIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
unset COMMIT_AUTHOR_NAME
unset EMAIL
unset GIT_ALTERNATE_OBJECT_DIRECTORIES
unset GIT_AUTHOR_DATE
GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=author@example.com
GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='A U Thor'
unset GIT_COMMITTER_DATE
GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL=committer@example.com
GIT_COMMITTER_NAME='C O Mitter'
unset GIT_DIFF_OPTS
unset GIT_DIR
introduce GIT_WORK_TREE to specify the work tree setup_gdg is used as abbreviation for setup_git_directory_gently. The work tree can be specified using the environment variable GIT_WORK_TREE and the config option core.worktree (the environment variable has precendence over the config option). Additionally there is a command line option --work-tree which sets the environment variable. setup_gdg does the following now: GIT_DIR unspecified repository in .git directory parent directory of the .git directory is used as work tree, GIT_WORK_TREE is ignored GIT_DIR unspecified repository in cwd GIT_DIR is set to cwd see the cases with GIT_DIR specified what happens next and also see the note below GIT_DIR specified GIT_WORK_TREE/core.worktree unspecified cwd is used as work tree GIT_DIR specified GIT_WORK_TREE/core.worktree specified the specified work tree is used Note on the case where GIT_DIR is unspecified and repository is in cwd: GIT_WORK_TREE is used but is_inside_git_dir is always true. I did it this way because setup_gdg might be called multiple times (e.g. when doing alias expansion) and in successive calls setup_gdg should do the same thing every time. Meaning of is_bare/is_inside_work_tree/is_inside_git_dir: (1) is_bare_repository A repository is bare if core.bare is true or core.bare is unspecified and the name suggests it is bare (directory not named .git). The bare option disables a few protective checks which are useful with a working tree. Currently this changes if a repository is bare: updates of HEAD are allowed git gc packs the refs the reflog is disabled by default (2) is_inside_work_tree True if the cwd is inside the associated working tree (if there is one), false otherwise. (3) is_inside_git_dir True if the cwd is inside the git directory, false otherwise. Before this patch is_inside_git_dir was always true for bare repositories. When setup_gdg finds a repository git_config(git_default_config) is always called. This ensure that is_bare_repository makes use of core.bare and does not guess even though core.bare is specified. inside_work_tree and inside_git_dir are set if setup_gdg finds a repository. The is_inside_work_tree and is_inside_git_dir functions will die if they are called before a successful call to setup_gdg. Signed-off-by: Matthias Lederhofer <matled@gmx.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-06-06 09:10:42 +02:00
unset GIT_WORK_TREE
unset GIT_EXTERNAL_DIFF
unset GIT_INDEX_FILE
unset GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY
unset SHA1_FILE_DIRECTORIES
unset SHA1_FILE_DIRECTORY
GIT_MERGE_VERBOSITY=5
export GIT_MERGE_VERBOSITY
export GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL GIT_AUTHOR_NAME
export GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL GIT_COMMITTER_NAME
export EDITOR VISUAL
# Protect ourselves from common misconfiguration to export
# CDPATH into the environment
unset CDPATH
case $(echo $GIT_TRACE |tr "[A-Z]" "[a-z]") in
1|2|true)
echo "* warning: Some tests will not work if GIT_TRACE" \
"is set as to trace on STDERR ! *"
echo "* warning: Please set GIT_TRACE to something" \
"other than 1, 2 or true ! *"
;;
esac
# Each test should start with something like this, after copyright notices:
#
# test_description='Description of this test...
# This test checks if command xyzzy does the right thing...
# '
# . ./test-lib.sh
[ "x$TERM" != "xdumb" ] &&
[ -t 1 ] &&
tput bold >/dev/null 2>&1 &&
tput setaf 1 >/dev/null 2>&1 &&
tput sgr0 >/dev/null 2>&1 &&
color=t
while test "$#" -ne 0
do
case "$1" in
-d|--d|--de|--deb|--debu|--debug)
debug=t; shift ;;
-i|--i|--im|--imm|--imme|--immed|--immedi|--immedia|--immediat|--immediate)
immediate=t; shift ;;
-h|--h|--he|--hel|--help)
help=t; shift ;;
-v|--v|--ve|--ver|--verb|--verbo|--verbos|--verbose)
verbose=t; shift ;;
-q|--q|--qu|--qui|--quie|--quiet)
quiet=t; shift ;;
--no-color)
color=; shift ;;
--no-python)
# noop now...
shift ;;
*)
break ;;
esac
done
if test -n "$color"; then
say_color () {
case "$1" in
error) tput bold; tput setaf 1;; # bold red
skip) tput bold; tput setaf 2;; # bold green
pass) tput setaf 2;; # green
info) tput setaf 3;; # brown
*) test -n "$quiet" && return;;
esac
shift
echo "* $*"
tput sgr0
}
else
say_color() {
test -z "$1" && test -n "$quiet" && return
shift
echo "* $*"
}
fi
error () {
say_color error "error: $*"
trap - exit
exit 1
}
say () {
say_color info "$*"
}
test "${test_description}" != "" ||
error "Test script did not set test_description."
if test "$help" = "t"
then
echo "$test_description"
exit 0
fi
exec 5>&1
if test "$verbose" = "t"
then
exec 4>&2 3>&1
else
exec 4>/dev/null 3>/dev/null
fi
test_failure=0
test_count=0
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_fixed=0
test_broken=0
die () {
echo >&5 "FATAL: Unexpected exit with code $?"
exit 1
}
trap 'die' exit
test_tick () {
if test -z "${test_tick+set}"
then
test_tick=1112911993
else
test_tick=$(($test_tick + 60))
fi
GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="$test_tick -0700"
GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="$test_tick -0700"
export GIT_COMMITTER_DATE GIT_AUTHOR_DATE
}
# You are not expected to call test_ok_ and test_failure_ directly, use
# the text_expect_* functions instead.
test_ok_ () {
test_count=$(expr "$test_count" + 1)
say_color "" " ok $test_count: $@"
}
test_failure_ () {
test_count=$(expr "$test_count" + 1)
test_failure=$(expr "$test_failure" + 1);
say_color error "FAIL $test_count: $1"
shift
echo "$@" | sed -e 's/^/ /'
test "$immediate" = "" || { trap - exit; exit 1; }
}
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_known_broken_ok_ () {
test_count=$(expr "$test_count" + 1)
test_fixed=$(($test_fixed+1))
say_color "" " FIXED $test_count: $@"
}
test_known_broken_failure_ () {
test_count=$(expr "$test_count" + 1)
test_broken=$(($test_broken+1))
say_color skip " still broken $test_count: $@"
}
test_debug () {
test "$debug" = "" || eval "$1"
}
test_run_ () {
eval >&3 2>&4 "$1"
eval_ret="$?"
return 0
}
test_skip () {
this_test=$(expr "./$0" : '.*/\(t[0-9]*\)-[^/]*$')
this_test="$this_test.$(expr "$test_count" + 1)"
to_skip=
for skp in $GIT_SKIP_TESTS
do
case "$this_test" in
$skp)
to_skip=t
esac
done
case "$to_skip" in
t)
say_color skip >&3 "skipping test: $@"
test_count=$(expr "$test_count" + 1)
say_color skip "skip $test_count: $1"
: true
;;
*)
false
;;
esac
}
test_expect_failure () {
test "$#" = 2 ||
error "bug in the test script: not 2 parameters to test-expect-failure"
if ! test_skip "$@"
then
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
say >&3 "checking known breakage: $2"
test_run_ "$2"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
if [ "$?" = 0 -a "$eval_ret" = 0 ]
then
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_known_broken_ok_ "$1"
else
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_known_broken_failure_ "$1"
fi
fi
echo >&3 ""
}
test_expect_success () {
test "$#" = 2 ||
error "bug in the test script: not 2 parameters to test-expect-success"
if ! test_skip "$@"
then
say >&3 "expecting success: $2"
test_run_ "$2"
if [ "$?" = 0 -a "$eval_ret" = 0 ]
then
test_ok_ "$1"
else
test_failure_ "$@"
fi
fi
echo >&3 ""
}
test_expect_code () {
test "$#" = 3 ||
error "bug in the test script: not 3 parameters to test-expect-code"
if ! test_skip "$@"
then
say >&3 "expecting exit code $1: $3"
test_run_ "$3"
if [ "$?" = 0 -a "$eval_ret" = "$1" ]
then
test_ok_ "$2"
else
test_failure_ "$@"
fi
fi
echo >&3 ""
}
# This is not among top-level (test_expect_success | test_expect_failure)
# but is a prefix that can be used in the test script, like:
#
# test_expect_success 'complain and die' '
# do something &&
# do something else &&
# test_must_fail git checkout ../outerspace
# '
#
# Writing this as "! git checkout ../outerspace" is wrong, because
# the failure could be due to a segv. We want a controlled failure.
test_must_fail () {
"$@"
test $? -gt 0 -a $? -le 128
}
# Most tests can use the created repository, but some may need to create more.
# Usage: test_create_repo <directory>
test_create_repo () {
test "$#" = 1 ||
error "bug in the test script: not 1 parameter to test-create-repo"
owd=`pwd`
repo="$1"
mkdir "$repo"
cd "$repo" || error "Cannot setup test environment"
"$GIT_EXEC_PATH/git" init --template=$GIT_EXEC_PATH/templates/blt/ >/dev/null 2>&1 ||
error "cannot run git init -- have you built things yet?"
mv .git/hooks .git/hooks-disabled
cd "$owd"
}
test_done () {
trap - exit
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
if test "$test_fixed" != 0
then
say_color pass "fixed $test_fixed known breakage(s)"
fi
if test "$test_broken" != 0
then
say_color error "still have $test_broken known breakage(s)"
msg="remaining $(($test_count-$test_broken)) test(s)"
else
msg="$test_count test(s)"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
fi
case "$test_failure" in
0)
# We could:
# cd .. && rm -fr trash
# but that means we forbid any tests that use their own
# subdirectory from calling test_done without coming back
# to where they started from.
# The Makefile provided will clean this test area so
# we will leave things as they are.
say_color pass "passed all $msg"
exit 0 ;;
*)
say_color error "failed $test_failure among $msg"
exit 1 ;;
esac
}
# Test the binaries we have just built. The tests are kept in
# t/ subdirectory and are run in trash subdirectory.
PATH=$(pwd)/..:$PATH
GIT_EXEC_PATH=$(pwd)/..
GIT_TEMPLATE_DIR=$(pwd)/../templates/blt
unset GIT_CONFIG
unset GIT_CONFIG_LOCAL
GIT_CONFIG_NOSYSTEM=1
GIT_CONFIG_NOGLOBAL=1
export PATH GIT_EXEC_PATH GIT_TEMPLATE_DIR GIT_CONFIG_NOSYSTEM GIT_CONFIG_NOGLOBAL
GITPERLLIB=$(pwd)/../perl/blib/lib:$(pwd)/../perl/blib/arch/auto/Git
export GITPERLLIB
test -d ../templates/blt || {
error "You haven't built things yet, have you?"
}
if ! test -x ../test-chmtime; then
echo >&2 'You need to build test-chmtime:'
echo >&2 'Run "make test-chmtime" in the source (toplevel) directory'
exit 1
fi
. ../GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS
# Test repository
test=trash
rm -fr "$test"
test_create_repo $test
cd "$test"
this_test=$(expr "./$0" : '.*/\(t[0-9]*\)-[^/]*$')
for skp in $GIT_SKIP_TESTS
do
to_skip=
for skp in $GIT_SKIP_TESTS
do
case "$this_test" in
$skp)
to_skip=t
esac
done
case "$to_skip" in
t)
say_color skip >&3 "skipping test $this_test altogether"
say_color skip "skip all tests in $this_test"
test_done
esac
done