git-commit-vandalism/t/t0000-basic.sh

1222 lines
35 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2005 Junio C Hamano
#
test_description='Test the very basics part #1.
The rest of the test suite does not check the basic operation of git
plumbing commands to work very carefully. Their job is to concentrate
on tricky features that caused bugs in the past to detect regression.
This test runs very basic features, like registering things in cache,
writing tree, etc.
Note that this test *deliberately* hard-codes many expected object
IDs. When object ID computation changes, like in the previous case of
swapping compression and hashing order, the person who is making the
modification *should* take notice and update the test vectors here.
'
. ./test-lib.sh
. "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/lib-subtest.sh
try_local_xy () {
local x="local" y="alsolocal" &&
echo "$x $y"
}
# Check whether the shell supports the "local" keyword. "local" is not
# POSIX-standard, but it is very widely supported by POSIX-compliant
# shells, and we rely on it within Git's test framework.
#
# If your shell fails this test, the results of other tests may be
# unreliable. You may wish to report the problem to the Git mailing
# list <git@vger.kernel.org>, as it could cause us to reconsider
# relying on "local".
test_expect_success 'verify that the running shell supports "local"' '
x="notlocal" &&
y="alsonotlocal" &&
echo "local alsolocal" >expected1 &&
try_local_xy >actual1 &&
test_cmp expected1 actual1 &&
echo "notlocal alsonotlocal" >expected2 &&
echo "$x $y" >actual2 &&
test_cmp expected2 actual2
'
################################################################
# git init has been done in an empty repository.
# make sure it is empty.
test_expect_success '.git/objects should be empty after git init in an empty repo' '
find .git/objects -type f -print >should-be-empty &&
test_line_count = 0 should-be-empty
'
# also it should have 2 subdirectories; no fan-out anymore, pack, and info.
# 3 is counting "objects" itself
test_expect_success '.git/objects should have 3 subdirectories' '
find .git/objects -type d -print >full-of-directories &&
test_line_count = 3 full-of-directories
'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$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 harness
test_expect_success 'success is reported like this' '
:
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_expect_success 'subtest: 3 passing tests' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test full-pass <<-\EOF &&
for i in 1 2 3
do
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success "passing test #$i" "true"
done
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
check_sub_test_lib_test full-pass <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> # passed all 3 test(s)
> 1..3
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: 2/3 tests passing' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test_err partial-pass <<-\EOF &&
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success "passing test #1" "true"
test_expect_success "failing test #2" "false"
test_expect_success "passing test #3" "true"
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
check_sub_test_lib_test partial-pass <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> not ok 2 - failing test #2
# false
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> # failed 1 among 3 test(s)
> 1..3
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --immediate' '
run_sub_test_lib_test_err partial-pass \
--immediate &&
check_sub_test_lib_test_err partial-pass \
<<-\EOF_OUT 3<<-EOF_ERR
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> not ok 2 - failing test #2
> # false
> 1..2
EOF_OUT
EOF_ERR
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: a failing TODO test' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test failing-todo <<-\EOF &&
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success "passing test" "true"
test_expect_failure "pretend we have a known breakage" "false"
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
check_sub_test_lib_test failing-todo <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test
> not ok 2 - pretend we have a known breakage # TODO known breakage
> # still have 1 known breakage(s)
> # passed all remaining 1 test(s)
> 1..2
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: a passing TODO test' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test passing-todo <<-\EOF &&
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_failure "pretend we have fixed a known breakage" "true"
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
check_sub_test_lib_test passing-todo <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - pretend we have fixed a known breakage # TODO known breakage vanished
> # 1 known breakage(s) vanished; please update test(s)
> 1..1
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: 2 TODO tests, one passin' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test partially-passing-todos <<-\EOF &&
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_failure "pretend we have a known breakage" "false"
test_expect_success "pretend we have a passing test" "true"
test_expect_failure "pretend we have fixed another known breakage" "true"
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
check_sub_test_lib_test partially-passing-todos <<-\EOF
> not ok 1 - pretend we have a known breakage # TODO known breakage
> ok 2 - pretend we have a passing test
> ok 3 - pretend we have fixed another known breakage # TODO known breakage vanished
> # 1 known breakage(s) vanished; please update test(s)
> # still have 1 known breakage(s)
> # passed all remaining 1 test(s)
> 1..3
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: mixed results: pass, failure and a TODO test' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test_err mixed-results1 <<-\EOF &&
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success "passing test" "true"
test_expect_success "failing test" "false"
test_expect_failure "pretend we have a known breakage" "false"
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
check_sub_test_lib_test mixed-results1 <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test
> not ok 2 - failing test
> # false
> not ok 3 - pretend we have a known breakage # TODO known breakage
> # still have 1 known breakage(s)
> # failed 1 among remaining 2 test(s)
> 1..3
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: mixed results: a mixture of all possible results' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test_err mixed-results2 <<-\EOF &&
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success "passing test" "true"
test_expect_success "passing test" "true"
test_expect_success "passing test" "true"
test_expect_success "passing test" "true"
test_expect_success "failing test" "false"
test_expect_success "failing test" "false"
test_expect_success "failing test" "false"
test_expect_failure "pretend we have a known breakage" "false"
test_expect_failure "pretend we have a known breakage" "false"
test_expect_failure "pretend we have fixed a known breakage" "true"
test_done
EOF
check_sub_test_lib_test mixed-results2 <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test
> ok 2 - passing test
> ok 3 - passing test
> ok 4 - passing test
> not ok 5 - failing test
> # false
> not ok 6 - failing test
> # false
> not ok 7 - failing test
> # false
> not ok 8 - pretend we have a known breakage # TODO known breakage
> not ok 9 - pretend we have a known breakage # TODO known breakage
> ok 10 - pretend we have fixed a known breakage # TODO known breakage vanished
> # 1 known breakage(s) vanished; please update test(s)
> # still have 2 known breakage(s)
> # failed 3 among remaining 7 test(s)
> 1..10
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --verbose option' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test_err t1234-verbose --verbose <<-\EOF &&
test_expect_success "passing test" true
test_expect_success "test with output" "echo foo"
test_expect_success "failing test" false
test_done
EOF
mv t1234-verbose/out t1234-verbose/out+ &&
grep -v "^Initialized empty" t1234-verbose/out+ >t1234-verbose/out &&
check_sub_test_lib_test t1234-verbose <<-\EOF
tests: show the test name and number at the start of verbose output The verbose output of every test looks something like this: expecting success: echo content >file && git add file && git commit -m "add file" [master (root-commit) d1fbfbd] add file Author: A U Thor <author@example.com> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 file ok 1 - commit works i.e. first an "expecting success" (or "checking known breakage") line followed by the commands to be executed, then the output of those comamnds, and finally an "ok"/"not ok" line containing the test name. Note that the test's name is only shown at the very end. With '-x' tracing enabled and/or in longer tests the verbose output might be several screenfulls long, making it harder than necessary to find where the output of the test with a given name starts (especially when the outputs to different file descriptors are racing, and the "expecting success"/command block arrives earlier than the "ok" line of the previous test). Print the test name at the start of the test's verbose output, i.e. at the end of the "expecting success" and "checking known breakage" lines, to make the start of a particular test a bit easier to recognize. Also print the test script and test case numbers, to help those poor souls who regularly have to scan through the combined verbose output of several test scripts. So the dummy test above would start like this: expecting success of 9999.1 'commit works': echo content >file && [...] Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-05 23:04:47 +02:00
> expecting success of 1234.1 '\''passing test'\'': true
> ok 1 - passing test
> Z
tests: show the test name and number at the start of verbose output The verbose output of every test looks something like this: expecting success: echo content >file && git add file && git commit -m "add file" [master (root-commit) d1fbfbd] add file Author: A U Thor <author@example.com> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 file ok 1 - commit works i.e. first an "expecting success" (or "checking known breakage") line followed by the commands to be executed, then the output of those comamnds, and finally an "ok"/"not ok" line containing the test name. Note that the test's name is only shown at the very end. With '-x' tracing enabled and/or in longer tests the verbose output might be several screenfulls long, making it harder than necessary to find where the output of the test with a given name starts (especially when the outputs to different file descriptors are racing, and the "expecting success"/command block arrives earlier than the "ok" line of the previous test). Print the test name at the start of the test's verbose output, i.e. at the end of the "expecting success" and "checking known breakage" lines, to make the start of a particular test a bit easier to recognize. Also print the test script and test case numbers, to help those poor souls who regularly have to scan through the combined verbose output of several test scripts. So the dummy test above would start like this: expecting success of 9999.1 'commit works': echo content >file && [...] Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-05 23:04:47 +02:00
> expecting success of 1234.2 '\''test with output'\'': echo foo
> foo
> ok 2 - test with output
> Z
tests: show the test name and number at the start of verbose output The verbose output of every test looks something like this: expecting success: echo content >file && git add file && git commit -m "add file" [master (root-commit) d1fbfbd] add file Author: A U Thor <author@example.com> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 file ok 1 - commit works i.e. first an "expecting success" (or "checking known breakage") line followed by the commands to be executed, then the output of those comamnds, and finally an "ok"/"not ok" line containing the test name. Note that the test's name is only shown at the very end. With '-x' tracing enabled and/or in longer tests the verbose output might be several screenfulls long, making it harder than necessary to find where the output of the test with a given name starts (especially when the outputs to different file descriptors are racing, and the "expecting success"/command block arrives earlier than the "ok" line of the previous test). Print the test name at the start of the test's verbose output, i.e. at the end of the "expecting success" and "checking known breakage" lines, to make the start of a particular test a bit easier to recognize. Also print the test script and test case numbers, to help those poor souls who regularly have to scan through the combined verbose output of several test scripts. So the dummy test above would start like this: expecting success of 9999.1 'commit works': echo content >file && [...] Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-05 23:04:47 +02:00
> expecting success of 1234.3 '\''failing test'\'': false
> not ok 3 - failing test
> # false
> Z
> # failed 1 among 3 test(s)
> 1..3
EOF
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --verbose-only option' '
run_sub_test_lib_test_err \
t1234-verbose \
--verbose-only=2 &&
check_sub_test_lib_test t1234-verbose <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test
> Z
> expecting success of 1234.2 '\''test with output'\'': echo foo
> foo
> ok 2 - test with output
> Z
> not ok 3 - failing test
> # false
> # failed 1 among 3 test(s)
> 1..3
EOF
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: skip one with GIT_SKIP_TESTS' '
(
run_sub_test_lib_test full-pass \
--skip="full.2" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test full-pass <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 # skip passing test #2 (GIT_SKIP_TESTS)
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> # passed all 3 test(s)
> 1..3
EOF
)
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: skip several with GIT_SKIP_TESTS' '
(
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
t0000: clear GIT_SKIP_TESTS before running sub-tests In t0000, we run several fake "sub-test" suites to verify the behavior of the test suite. But because we don't clear the parent environment completely, the sub-tests can be fooled by variables meant for the parent. For example: GIT_SKIP_TESTS=t1234 ./t0000-basic.sh fails when a sub-test expects its fake t1234 to actually run. This particular pattern is unlikely in practice; we're running a single script, and there is no t1234 in the real test suite anyway (not yet, at least). A more real-world example is: GIT_SKIP_TESTS=t[^0]* make test to run only the t0* tests. The fix is conceptually simple: we should clear the GIT_SKIP_TESTS variable when running the sub-tests, because its contents (if any) will be meant for the main test suite. This is easy to do centrally in our sub-test helper. But there's a catch: some of our tests do set GIT_SKIP_TESTS intentionally to test the feature. We need to allow them to continue to set it, but clear it for all the other tests. And the sub-test helper can't tell if the GIT_SKIP_TESTS it sees is from a test or not. We can handle this by adding a new option to the helper to let callers specify the skip list. I considered adding a more general "--eval" option to let callers set up the env for the sub-test however they like. That would cover this case and possible future ones. But the quoting gets awkward for the callers (since we're now 2 layers deep in evals!), so I went with the simpler more specific solution. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 20:43:47 +02:00
--skip="git.2 git.5" <<-\EOF &&
for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6
do
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success "passing test #$i" "true"
done
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 # skip passing test #2 (GIT_SKIP_TESTS)
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> ok 4 - passing test #4
> ok 5 # skip passing test #5 (GIT_SKIP_TESTS)
> ok 6 - passing test #6
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
)
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: sh pattern skipping with GIT_SKIP_TESTS' '
(
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--skip="git.[2-5]" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 # skip passing test #2 (GIT_SKIP_TESTS)
> ok 3 # skip passing test #3 (GIT_SKIP_TESTS)
> ok 4 # skip passing test #4 (GIT_SKIP_TESTS)
> ok 5 # skip passing test #5 (GIT_SKIP_TESTS)
> ok 6 - passing test #6
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
)
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: skip entire test suite with GIT_SKIP_TESTS' '
(
GIT_SKIP_TESTS="git" && export GIT_SKIP_TESTS &&
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--skip="git" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> 1..0 # SKIP skip all tests in git
EOF
)
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: GIT_SKIP_TESTS does not skip unmatched suite' '
(
GIT_SKIP_TESTS="notgit" && export GIT_SKIP_TESTS &&
run_sub_test_lib_test full-pass \
--skip="notfull" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test full-pass <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> # passed all 3 test(s)
> 1..3
EOF
)
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run basic' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several --run="1,3,5" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 # skip passing test #2 (--run)
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> ok 4 # skip passing test #4 (--run)
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 # skip passing test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run with a range' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="1-3" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> ok 4 # skip passing test #4 (--run)
> ok 5 # skip passing test #5 (--run)
> ok 6 # skip passing test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run with two ranges' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="1-2,5-6" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 # skip passing test #3 (--run)
> ok 4 # skip passing test #4 (--run)
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 - passing test #6
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run with a left open range' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="-3" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> ok 4 # skip passing test #4 (--run)
> ok 5 # skip passing test #5 (--run)
> ok 6 # skip passing test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run with a right open range' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="4-" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 # skip passing test #1 (--run)
> ok 2 # skip passing test #2 (--run)
> ok 3 # skip passing test #3 (--run)
> ok 4 - passing test #4
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 - passing test #6
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run with basic negation' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="!3" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 # skip passing test #3 (--run)
> ok 4 - passing test #4
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 - passing test #6
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run with two negations' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="!3,!6" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 # skip passing test #3 (--run)
> ok 4 - passing test #4
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 # skip passing test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run a range and negation' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="-4,!2" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 # skip passing test #2 (--run)
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> ok 4 - passing test #4
> ok 5 # skip passing test #5 (--run)
> ok 6 # skip passing test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run range negation' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="!1-3" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 # skip passing test #1 (--run)
> ok 2 # skip passing test #2 (--run)
> ok 3 # skip passing test #3 (--run)
> ok 4 - passing test #4
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 - passing test #6
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run include, exclude and include' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="1-5,!1-3,2" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 # skip passing test #1 (--run)
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 # skip passing test #3 (--run)
> ok 4 - passing test #4
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 # skip passing test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run include, exclude and include, comma separated' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run=1-5,!1-3,2 &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 # skip passing test #1 (--run)
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 # skip passing test #3 (--run)
> ok 4 - passing test #4
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 # skip passing test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run exclude and include' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="!3-,5" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 - passing test #2
> ok 3 # skip passing test #3 (--run)
> ok 4 # skip passing test #4 (--run)
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 # skip passing test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run empty selectors' '
run_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several \
--run="1,,3,,,5" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test git-skip-tests-several <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - passing test #1
> ok 2 # skip passing test #2 (--run)
> ok 3 - passing test #3
> ok 4 # skip passing test #4 (--run)
> ok 5 - passing test #5
> ok 6 # skip passing test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 6 test(s)
> 1..6
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run substring selector' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test run-substring-selector \
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
--run="relevant" <<-\EOF &&
test_expect_success "relevant test" "true"
for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6
do
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success "other test #$i" "true"
done
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
check_sub_test_lib_test run-substring-selector <<-\EOF
> ok 1 - relevant test
> ok 2 # skip other test #1 (--run)
> ok 3 # skip other test #2 (--run)
> ok 4 # skip other test #3 (--run)
> ok 5 # skip other test #4 (--run)
> ok 6 # skip other test #5 (--run)
> ok 7 # skip other test #6 (--run)
> # passed all 7 test(s)
> 1..7
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run keyword selection' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test_err run-inv-range-start \
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
--run="a-5" <<-\EOF &&
test_expect_success "passing test #1" "true"
test_done
EOF
check_sub_test_lib_test_err run-inv-range-start \
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
<<-\EOF_OUT 3<<-EOF_ERR
> FATAL: Unexpected exit with code 1
EOF_OUT
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
> error: --run: invalid non-numeric in range start: ${SQ}a-5${SQ}
EOF_ERR
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --run invalid range end' '
run_sub_test_lib_test_err run-inv-range-start \
--run="1-z" &&
check_sub_test_lib_test_err run-inv-range-start \
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
<<-\EOF_OUT 3<<-EOF_ERR
> FATAL: Unexpected exit with code 1
EOF_OUT
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
> error: --run: invalid non-numeric in range end: ${SQ}1-z${SQ}
EOF_ERR
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --invert-exit-code without --immediate' '
run_sub_test_lib_test_err full-pass \
--invert-exit-code &&
check_sub_test_lib_test_err full-pass \
<<-\EOF_OUT 3<<-EOF_ERR
ok 1 - passing test #1
ok 2 - passing test #2
ok 3 - passing test #3
# passed all 3 test(s)
1..3
# faking up non-zero exit with --invert-exit-code
EOF_OUT
EOF_ERR
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --invert-exit-code with --immediate: all passed' '
run_sub_test_lib_test_err full-pass \
--invert-exit-code --immediate &&
check_sub_test_lib_test_err full-pass \
<<-\EOF_OUT 3<<-EOF_ERR
ok 1 - passing test #1
ok 2 - passing test #2
ok 3 - passing test #3
# passed all 3 test(s)
1..3
# faking up non-zero exit with --invert-exit-code
EOF_OUT
EOF_ERR
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --invert-exit-code without --immediate: partial pass' '
run_sub_test_lib_test partial-pass \
--invert-exit-code &&
check_sub_test_lib_test partial-pass <<-\EOF
ok 1 - passing test #1
not ok 2 - # TODO induced breakage (--invert-exit-code): failing test #2
# false
ok 3 - passing test #3
# failed 1 among 3 test(s)
1..3
# faked up failures as TODO & now exiting with 0 due to --invert-exit-code
EOF
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --invert-exit-code with --immediate: partial pass' '
run_sub_test_lib_test partial-pass \
--invert-exit-code --immediate &&
check_sub_test_lib_test partial-pass \
<<-\EOF_OUT 3<<-EOF_ERR
ok 1 - passing test #1
not ok 2 - # TODO induced breakage (--invert-exit-code): failing test #2
# false
1..2
# faked up failures as TODO & now exiting with 0 due to --invert-exit-code
EOF_OUT
EOF_ERR
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: --invert-exit-code --immediate: got a failure' '
run_sub_test_lib_test partial-pass \
--invert-exit-code --immediate &&
check_sub_test_lib_test_err partial-pass \
<<-\EOF_OUT 3<<-EOF_ERR
ok 1 - passing test #1
not ok 2 - # TODO induced breakage (--invert-exit-code): failing test #2
# false
1..2
# faked up failures as TODO & now exiting with 0 due to --invert-exit-code
EOF_OUT
EOF_ERR
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: tests respect prerequisites' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test prereqs <<-\EOF &&
t0000: run prereq tests inside sub-test We test the behavior of prerequisites in t0000 by setting up fake ones in the main test script, trying to run some tests, and then seeing if those tests impacted the environment correctly. If they didn't, then we write a message and manually call exit. Instead, let's push these down into a sub-test, like many of the other tests covering the framework itself. This has a few advantages: - it does not pollute the test output with mention of skipped tests (that we know are uninteresting -- the point of the test was to see that these are skipped). - when running in a TAP harness, we get a useful test failure message (whereas when the script exits early, a tool like "prove" simply says "Dubious, test returned 1"). - we do not have to worry about different test environments, such as when GIT_TEST_FAIL_PREREQS_INTERNAL is set. Our sub-test helpers already give us a known environment. - the tests themselves are a bit easier to read, as we can just check the test-framework output to see what happened (and get the usual test_cmp diff if it failed) A few notes on the implementation: - we could do one sub-test per each individual test_expect_success. I broke it up here into a few logical groups, as I think this makes it more readable - the original tests modified environment variables inside the test bodies. Instead, I've used "true" as the body of a test we expect to run and "false" otherwise. Technically this does not confirm that the body of the "true" test actually ran. We are trusting the framework output to believe that it truly ran, which is sufficient for these tests. And I think the end result is much simpler to follow. - the nested_prereq test uses a few bare "test -f" calls; I converted these to our usual test_path_is_* helpers while moving the code around. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:32 +01:00
test_set_prereq HAVEIT
test_expect_success HAVEIT "prereq is satisfied" "true"
test_expect_success "have_prereq works" "
test_have_prereq HAVEIT
"
test_expect_success DONTHAVEIT "prereq not satisfied" "false"
t0000: run prereq tests inside sub-test We test the behavior of prerequisites in t0000 by setting up fake ones in the main test script, trying to run some tests, and then seeing if those tests impacted the environment correctly. If they didn't, then we write a message and manually call exit. Instead, let's push these down into a sub-test, like many of the other tests covering the framework itself. This has a few advantages: - it does not pollute the test output with mention of skipped tests (that we know are uninteresting -- the point of the test was to see that these are skipped). - when running in a TAP harness, we get a useful test failure message (whereas when the script exits early, a tool like "prove" simply says "Dubious, test returned 1"). - we do not have to worry about different test environments, such as when GIT_TEST_FAIL_PREREQS_INTERNAL is set. Our sub-test helpers already give us a known environment. - the tests themselves are a bit easier to read, as we can just check the test-framework output to see what happened (and get the usual test_cmp diff if it failed) A few notes on the implementation: - we could do one sub-test per each individual test_expect_success. I broke it up here into a few logical groups, as I think this makes it more readable - the original tests modified environment variables inside the test bodies. Instead, I've used "true" as the body of a test we expect to run and "false" otherwise. Technically this does not confirm that the body of the "true" test actually ran. We are trusting the framework output to believe that it truly ran, which is sufficient for these tests. And I think the end result is much simpler to follow. - the nested_prereq test uses a few bare "test -f" calls; I converted these to our usual test_path_is_* helpers while moving the code around. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:32 +01:00
test_set_prereq HAVETHIS
test_expect_success HAVETHIS,HAVEIT "multiple prereqs" "true"
test_expect_success HAVEIT,DONTHAVEIT "mixed prereqs (yes,no)" "false"
test_expect_success DONTHAVEIT,HAVEIT "mixed prereqs (no,yes)" "false"
t0000: run prereq tests inside sub-test We test the behavior of prerequisites in t0000 by setting up fake ones in the main test script, trying to run some tests, and then seeing if those tests impacted the environment correctly. If they didn't, then we write a message and manually call exit. Instead, let's push these down into a sub-test, like many of the other tests covering the framework itself. This has a few advantages: - it does not pollute the test output with mention of skipped tests (that we know are uninteresting -- the point of the test was to see that these are skipped). - when running in a TAP harness, we get a useful test failure message (whereas when the script exits early, a tool like "prove" simply says "Dubious, test returned 1"). - we do not have to worry about different test environments, such as when GIT_TEST_FAIL_PREREQS_INTERNAL is set. Our sub-test helpers already give us a known environment. - the tests themselves are a bit easier to read, as we can just check the test-framework output to see what happened (and get the usual test_cmp diff if it failed) A few notes on the implementation: - we could do one sub-test per each individual test_expect_success. I broke it up here into a few logical groups, as I think this makes it more readable - the original tests modified environment variables inside the test bodies. Instead, I've used "true" as the body of a test we expect to run and "false" otherwise. Technically this does not confirm that the body of the "true" test actually ran. We are trusting the framework output to believe that it truly ran, which is sufficient for these tests. And I think the end result is much simpler to follow. - the nested_prereq test uses a few bare "test -f" calls; I converted these to our usual test_path_is_* helpers while moving the code around. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:32 +01:00
test_done
EOF
check_sub_test_lib_test prereqs <<-\EOF
ok 1 - prereq is satisfied
ok 2 - have_prereq works
ok 3 # skip prereq not satisfied (missing DONTHAVEIT)
ok 4 - multiple prereqs
ok 5 # skip mixed prereqs (yes,no) (missing DONTHAVEIT of HAVEIT,DONTHAVEIT)
ok 6 # skip mixed prereqs (no,yes) (missing DONTHAVEIT of DONTHAVEIT,HAVEIT)
# passed all 6 test(s)
1..6
EOF
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: tests respect lazy prerequisites' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test lazy-prereqs <<-\EOF &&
t0000: run prereq tests inside sub-test We test the behavior of prerequisites in t0000 by setting up fake ones in the main test script, trying to run some tests, and then seeing if those tests impacted the environment correctly. If they didn't, then we write a message and manually call exit. Instead, let's push these down into a sub-test, like many of the other tests covering the framework itself. This has a few advantages: - it does not pollute the test output with mention of skipped tests (that we know are uninteresting -- the point of the test was to see that these are skipped). - when running in a TAP harness, we get a useful test failure message (whereas when the script exits early, a tool like "prove" simply says "Dubious, test returned 1"). - we do not have to worry about different test environments, such as when GIT_TEST_FAIL_PREREQS_INTERNAL is set. Our sub-test helpers already give us a known environment. - the tests themselves are a bit easier to read, as we can just check the test-framework output to see what happened (and get the usual test_cmp diff if it failed) A few notes on the implementation: - we could do one sub-test per each individual test_expect_success. I broke it up here into a few logical groups, as I think this makes it more readable - the original tests modified environment variables inside the test bodies. Instead, I've used "true" as the body of a test we expect to run and "false" otherwise. Technically this does not confirm that the body of the "true" test actually ran. We are trusting the framework output to believe that it truly ran, which is sufficient for these tests. And I think the end result is much simpler to follow. - the nested_prereq test uses a few bare "test -f" calls; I converted these to our usual test_path_is_* helpers while moving the code around. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:32 +01:00
test_lazy_prereq LAZY_TRUE true
test_expect_success LAZY_TRUE "lazy prereq is satisifed" "true"
test_expect_success !LAZY_TRUE "negative lazy prereq" "false"
test_lazy_prereq LAZY_FALSE false
test_expect_success LAZY_FALSE "lazy prereq not satisfied" "false"
test_expect_success !LAZY_FALSE "negative false prereq" "true"
test_done
EOF
check_sub_test_lib_test lazy-prereqs <<-\EOF
ok 1 - lazy prereq is satisifed
ok 2 # skip negative lazy prereq (missing !LAZY_TRUE)
ok 3 # skip lazy prereq not satisfied (missing LAZY_FALSE)
ok 4 - negative false prereq
# passed all 4 test(s)
1..4
EOF
tests: make sure nested lazy prereqs work reliably Some test prereqs depend on other prereqs, so in a couple of cases we have nested prereqs that look something like this: test_lazy_prereq FOO ' test_have_prereq BAR && check-foo ' This can be problematic, because lazy prereqs are evaluated in the '$TRASH_DIRECTORY/prereq-test-dir' directory, which is the same for every prereq, and which is automatically removed after the prereq has been evaluated. So if the inner prereq (BAR above) is a lazy prereq that hasn't been evaluated yet, then after its evaluation the 'prereq-test-dir' shared with the outer prereq will be removed. Consequently, 'check-foo' will find itself in a non-existing directory, and won't be able to create/access any files in its cwd, which could result in an unfulfilled outer prereq. Luckily, this doesn't affect any of our current nested prereqs, either because the inner prereq is not a lazy prereq (e.g. MINGW, CYGWIN or PERL), or because the outer prereq happens to be checked without touching any paths in its cwd (GPGSM and RFC1991 in 'lib-gpg.sh'). So to prevent nested prereqs from interfering with each other let's evaluate each prereq in its own dedicated directory by appending the prereq's name to the directory name, e.g. 'prereq-test-dir-SYMLINKS'. In the test we check not only that the prereq test dir is still there, but also that the inner prereq can't mess with the outer prereq's files. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 20:04:13 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: nested lazy prerequisites' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test nested-lazy <<-\EOF &&
t0000: run prereq tests inside sub-test We test the behavior of prerequisites in t0000 by setting up fake ones in the main test script, trying to run some tests, and then seeing if those tests impacted the environment correctly. If they didn't, then we write a message and manually call exit. Instead, let's push these down into a sub-test, like many of the other tests covering the framework itself. This has a few advantages: - it does not pollute the test output with mention of skipped tests (that we know are uninteresting -- the point of the test was to see that these are skipped). - when running in a TAP harness, we get a useful test failure message (whereas when the script exits early, a tool like "prove" simply says "Dubious, test returned 1"). - we do not have to worry about different test environments, such as when GIT_TEST_FAIL_PREREQS_INTERNAL is set. Our sub-test helpers already give us a known environment. - the tests themselves are a bit easier to read, as we can just check the test-framework output to see what happened (and get the usual test_cmp diff if it failed) A few notes on the implementation: - we could do one sub-test per each individual test_expect_success. I broke it up here into a few logical groups, as I think this makes it more readable - the original tests modified environment variables inside the test bodies. Instead, I've used "true" as the body of a test we expect to run and "false" otherwise. Technically this does not confirm that the body of the "true" test actually ran. We are trusting the framework output to believe that it truly ran, which is sufficient for these tests. And I think the end result is much simpler to follow. - the nested_prereq test uses a few bare "test -f" calls; I converted these to our usual test_path_is_* helpers while moving the code around. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:32 +01:00
test_lazy_prereq NESTED_INNER "
>inner &&
rm -f outer
"
test_lazy_prereq NESTED_PREREQ "
>outer &&
test_have_prereq NESTED_INNER &&
echo can create new file in cwd >file &&
test_path_is_file outer &&
test_path_is_missing inner
"
test_expect_success NESTED_PREREQ "evaluate nested prereq" "true"
test_done
EOF
check_sub_test_lib_test nested-lazy <<-\EOF
ok 1 - evaluate nested prereq
# passed all 1 test(s)
1..1
EOF
'
tests: make sure nested lazy prereqs work reliably Some test prereqs depend on other prereqs, so in a couple of cases we have nested prereqs that look something like this: test_lazy_prereq FOO ' test_have_prereq BAR && check-foo ' This can be problematic, because lazy prereqs are evaluated in the '$TRASH_DIRECTORY/prereq-test-dir' directory, which is the same for every prereq, and which is automatically removed after the prereq has been evaluated. So if the inner prereq (BAR above) is a lazy prereq that hasn't been evaluated yet, then after its evaluation the 'prereq-test-dir' shared with the outer prereq will be removed. Consequently, 'check-foo' will find itself in a non-existing directory, and won't be able to create/access any files in its cwd, which could result in an unfulfilled outer prereq. Luckily, this doesn't affect any of our current nested prereqs, either because the inner prereq is not a lazy prereq (e.g. MINGW, CYGWIN or PERL), or because the outer prereq happens to be checked without touching any paths in its cwd (GPGSM and RFC1991 in 'lib-gpg.sh'). So to prevent nested prereqs from interfering with each other let's evaluate each prereq in its own dedicated directory by appending the prereq's name to the directory name, e.g. 'prereq-test-dir-SYMLINKS'. In the test we check not only that the prereq test dir is still there, but also that the inner prereq can't mess with the outer prereq's files. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 20:04:13 +01:00
test_expect_success 'subtest: lazy prereqs do not turn off tracing' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test lazy-prereq-and-tracing \
-v -x <<-\EOF &&
test_lazy_prereq LAZY true
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success lazy "test_have_prereq LAZY && echo trace"
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
grep "echo trace" lazy-prereq-and-tracing/err
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: tests clean up after themselves' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test cleanup <<-\EOF &&
clean=no
test_expect_success "do cleanup" "
test_when_finished clean=yes
"
test_expect_success "cleanup happened" "
test $clean = yes
"
test_done
EOF
check_sub_test_lib_test cleanup <<-\EOF
ok 1 - do cleanup
ok 2 - cleanup happened
# passed all 2 test(s)
1..2
EOF
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: tests clean up even on failures' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test_err \
failing-cleanup <<-\EOF &&
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success "tests clean up even after a failure" "
touch clean-after-failure &&
test_when_finished rm clean-after-failure &&
(exit 1)
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
"
test_expect_success "failure to clean up causes the test to fail" "
test_when_finished \"(exit 2)\"
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
"
test_done
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
check_sub_test_lib_test failing-cleanup <<-\EOF
> not ok 1 - tests clean up even after a failure
> # Z
> # touch clean-after-failure &&
> # test_when_finished rm clean-after-failure &&
> # (exit 1)
> # Z
> not ok 2 - failure to clean up causes the test to fail
> # Z
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
> # test_when_finished "(exit 2)"
> # Z
> # failed 2 among 2 test(s)
> 1..2
EOF
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'subtest: test_atexit is run' '
write_and_run_sub_test_lib_test_err \
atexit-cleanup -i <<-\EOF &&
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
test_expect_success "tests clean up even after a failure" "
test-lib: introduce 'test_atexit' When running Apache, 'git daemon', or p4d, we want to kill them at the end of the test script, otherwise a leftover daemon process will keep its port open indefinitely, and thus will interfere with subsequent executions of the same test script. So far, we stop these daemon processes "manually", i.e.: - by registering functions or commands in the trap on EXIT to stop the daemon while preserving the last seen exit code before the trap (to deal with a failure when run with '--immediate' or with interrupts by ctrl-C), - and by invoking these functions/commands last thing before 'test_done' (and sometimes restoring the test framework's default trap on EXIT, to prevent the daemons from being killed twice). On one hand, we do this inconsistently, e.g. 'git p4' tests invoke different functions in the trap on EXIT and in the last test before 'test_done', and they neither restore the test framework's default trap on EXIT nor preserve the last seen exit code. On the other hand, this is error prone, because, as shown in a previous patch in this series, any output from the cleanup commands in the trap on EXIT can prevent a proper cleanup when a test script run with '--verbose-log' and certain shells, notably 'dash', is interrupted. Let's introduce 'test_atexit', which is loosely modeled after 'test_when_finished', but has a broader scope: rather than running the commands after the current test case, run them when the test script finishes, and also run them when the test is interrupted, or exits early in case of a failure while the '--immediate' option is in effect. When running the cleanup commands at the end of a successful test, then they will be run in 'test_done' before it removes the trash directory, i.e. the cleanup commands will still be able to access any pidfiles or socket files in there. When running the cleanup commands after an interrupt or failure with '--immediate', then they will be run in the trap on EXIT. In both cases they will be run in 'test_eval_', i.e. both standard error and output of all cleanup commands will go where they should according to the '-v' or '--verbose-log' options, and thus won't cause any troubles when interrupting a test script run with '--verbose-log'. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-03-13 13:24:11 +01:00
> ../../clean-atexit &&
test_atexit rm ../../clean-atexit &&
> ../../also-clean-atexit &&
test_atexit rm ../../also-clean-atexit &&
> ../../dont-clean-atexit &&
(exit 1)
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
"
test-lib: introduce 'test_atexit' When running Apache, 'git daemon', or p4d, we want to kill them at the end of the test script, otherwise a leftover daemon process will keep its port open indefinitely, and thus will interfere with subsequent executions of the same test script. So far, we stop these daemon processes "manually", i.e.: - by registering functions or commands in the trap on EXIT to stop the daemon while preserving the last seen exit code before the trap (to deal with a failure when run with '--immediate' or with interrupts by ctrl-C), - and by invoking these functions/commands last thing before 'test_done' (and sometimes restoring the test framework's default trap on EXIT, to prevent the daemons from being killed twice). On one hand, we do this inconsistently, e.g. 'git p4' tests invoke different functions in the trap on EXIT and in the last test before 'test_done', and they neither restore the test framework's default trap on EXIT nor preserve the last seen exit code. On the other hand, this is error prone, because, as shown in a previous patch in this series, any output from the cleanup commands in the trap on EXIT can prevent a proper cleanup when a test script run with '--verbose-log' and certain shells, notably 'dash', is interrupted. Let's introduce 'test_atexit', which is loosely modeled after 'test_when_finished', but has a broader scope: rather than running the commands after the current test case, run them when the test script finishes, and also run them when the test is interrupted, or exits early in case of a failure while the '--immediate' option is in effect. When running the cleanup commands at the end of a successful test, then they will be run in 'test_done' before it removes the trash directory, i.e. the cleanup commands will still be able to access any pidfiles or socket files in there. When running the cleanup commands after an interrupt or failure with '--immediate', then they will be run in the trap on EXIT. In both cases they will be run in 'test_eval_', i.e. both standard error and output of all cleanup commands will go where they should according to the '-v' or '--verbose-log' options, and thus won't cause any troubles when interrupting a test script run with '--verbose-log'. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-03-13 13:24:11 +01:00
test_done
EOF
test_path_is_file dont-clean-atexit &&
test_path_is_missing clean-atexit &&
test_path_is_missing also-clean-atexit
t0000: consistently use single quotes for outer tests When we use the sub-test helpers, we end up defining one shell snippet inside another shell snippet. So if we use single-quotes for the outer snippet, we have to use double-quotes within the inner snippet (it's included as here-doc within the outer snippet, but using a single quote would end the outer snippet early). Or vice versa we can use double quotes for the outer snippet, but then single quotes in the inner. We have some of each in the script, and neither is wrong. But it would be nice to be consistent unless there is a good reason not to. Using single quotes for the outer script is preferable, because it requires less metacharacter quoting overall. For example, in: test_expect_success 'outer' ' run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo $foo && test_expect_success "inner" " echo \$bar " EOF ' we need only quote inside "inner", but not inside "outer" or the here-doc. Whereas if we flip them, we have to quote in both places: test_expect_success 'outer' " run_sub_test_lib_test ... <<-\EOF echo \$foo && test_expect_success 'inner' ' echo \$bar ' EOF " The exception is when we need a literal single-quote in an expected output here-doc. There we can either use outer double-quotes, or just use ${SQ} within the doc. I chose the latter for consistency (within this test, but also with other test scripts that face the same problem). There is one other interesting case, which is some tests that do: test_expect_success ... " do_something --run='"'!3'"' " This is rather confusing to read, but is correct. The outer script sees '!3' in single-quotes, as does the eval'd snippet. This is perhaps being overly cautious. In many interactive shells, an exclamation triggers history expansion even inside double quotes, but that is not generally true in non-interactive shells. There's some conflicting information here. Commit 784ce03d55 (t4216: avoid unnecessary subshell in test_bloom_filters_not_used, 2020-05-19) reports it as a problem with OpenBSD 6.7's /bin/sh. However, we have many instances in this script of prereqs like !LAZY_TRUE, which haven't been a problem. I left them un-escaped here to test out this theory. It's much nicer if we can not worry about this as a portability issue, so it's worth knowing. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-28 07:32:37 +01:00
'
test-lib: introduce 'test_atexit' When running Apache, 'git daemon', or p4d, we want to kill them at the end of the test script, otherwise a leftover daemon process will keep its port open indefinitely, and thus will interfere with subsequent executions of the same test script. So far, we stop these daemon processes "manually", i.e.: - by registering functions or commands in the trap on EXIT to stop the daemon while preserving the last seen exit code before the trap (to deal with a failure when run with '--immediate' or with interrupts by ctrl-C), - and by invoking these functions/commands last thing before 'test_done' (and sometimes restoring the test framework's default trap on EXIT, to prevent the daemons from being killed twice). On one hand, we do this inconsistently, e.g. 'git p4' tests invoke different functions in the trap on EXIT and in the last test before 'test_done', and they neither restore the test framework's default trap on EXIT nor preserve the last seen exit code. On the other hand, this is error prone, because, as shown in a previous patch in this series, any output from the cleanup commands in the trap on EXIT can prevent a proper cleanup when a test script run with '--verbose-log' and certain shells, notably 'dash', is interrupted. Let's introduce 'test_atexit', which is loosely modeled after 'test_when_finished', but has a broader scope: rather than running the commands after the current test case, run them when the test script finishes, and also run them when the test is interrupted, or exits early in case of a failure while the '--immediate' option is in effect. When running the cleanup commands at the end of a successful test, then they will be run in 'test_done' before it removes the trash directory, i.e. the cleanup commands will still be able to access any pidfiles or socket files in there. When running the cleanup commands after an interrupt or failure with '--immediate', then they will be run in the trap on EXIT. In both cases they will be run in 'test_eval_', i.e. both standard error and output of all cleanup commands will go where they should according to the '-v' or '--verbose-log' options, and thus won't cause any troubles when interrupting a test script run with '--verbose-log'. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-03-13 13:24:11 +01:00
t: add test functions to translate hash-related values Add several test functions to make working with various hash-related values easier. Add test_oid_init, which loads common hash-related constants and placeholder object IDs from the newly added files in t/oid-info. Provide values for these constants for both SHA-1 and SHA-256. Add test_oid_cache, which accepts data on standard input in the form of hash-specific key-value pairs that can be looked up later, using the same format as the files in t/oid-info. Document this format in a t/oid-info/README directory so that it's easier to use in the future. Add test_oid, which is used to specify look up a per-hash value (produced on standard output) based on the key specified as its argument. Usually the data to be looked up will be a hash-related constant (such as the size of the hash in binary or hexadecimal), a well-known or placeholder object ID (such as the all-zeros object ID or one consisting of "deadbeef" repeated), or something similar. For these reasons, test_oid will usually be used within a command substitution. Consequently, redirect the error output to standard error, since otherwise it will not be displayed. Add test_detect_hash, which currently only detects SHA-1, and test_set_hash, which can be used to set a different hash algorithm for test purposes. In the future, test_detect_hash will learn to actually detect the hash depending on how the testsuite is to be run. Use the local keyword within these functions to avoid overwriting other shell variables. We have had a test balloon in place for a couple of releases to catch shells that don't have this keyword and have not received any reports of failure. Note that the varying usages of local used here are supported by all common open-source shells supporting the local keyword. Test these new functions as part of t0000, which also serves to demonstrate basic usage of them. In addition, add documentation on how to format the lookup data and how to use the test functions. Implement two basic lookup charts, one for common invalid or synthesized object IDs, and one for various facts about the hash function in use. Provide versions of the data for both SHA-1 and SHA-256. Since we use shell variables for storage, names used for lookup can currently consist only of shell identifier characters. If this is a problem in the future, we can hash the names before use. Improved-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-09-13 07:17:31 +02:00
test_expect_success 'test_oid provides sane info by default' '
test_oid zero >actual &&
grep "^00*\$" actual &&
rawsz="$(test_oid rawsz)" &&
hexsz="$(test_oid hexsz)" &&
test "$hexsz" -eq $(wc -c <actual) &&
test $(( $rawsz * 2)) -eq "$hexsz"
'
test_expect_success 'test_oid can look up data for SHA-1' '
test_when_finished "test_detect_hash" &&
test_set_hash sha1 &&
test_oid zero >actual &&
grep "^00*\$" actual &&
rawsz="$(test_oid rawsz)" &&
hexsz="$(test_oid hexsz)" &&
test $(wc -c <actual) -eq 40 &&
test "$rawsz" -eq 20 &&
test "$hexsz" -eq 40
'
test_expect_success 'test_oid can look up data for SHA-256' '
test_when_finished "test_detect_hash" &&
test_set_hash sha256 &&
test_oid zero >actual &&
grep "^00*\$" actual &&
rawsz="$(test_oid rawsz)" &&
hexsz="$(test_oid hexsz)" &&
test $(wc -c <actual) -eq 64 &&
test "$rawsz" -eq 32 &&
test "$hexsz" -eq 64
'
test_expect_success 'test_oid can look up data for a specified algorithm' '
rawsz="$(test_oid --hash=sha1 rawsz)" &&
hexsz="$(test_oid --hash=sha1 hexsz)" &&
test "$rawsz" -eq 20 &&
test "$hexsz" -eq 40 &&
rawsz="$(test_oid --hash=sha256 rawsz)" &&
hexsz="$(test_oid --hash=sha256 hexsz)" &&
test "$rawsz" -eq 32 &&
test "$hexsz" -eq 64
'
tests: add 'test_bool_env' to catch non-bool GIT_TEST_* values Since 3b072c577b (tests: replace test_tristate with "git env--helper", 2019-06-21) we get the normalized bool values of various GIT_TEST_* environment variables via 'git env--helper'. Now, while the 'git env--helper' command itself does catch invalid values in the environment variable or in the given --default and exits with error (exit code 128 or 129, respectively), it's invoked in conditions like 'if ! git env--helper ...', which means that all invalid bool values are interpreted the same as the ordinary 'false' (exit code 1). This has led to inadvertently skipped httpd tests in our CI builds for a couple of weeks, see 3960290675 (ci: restore running httpd tests, 2019-09-06). Let's be more careful about what the test suite accepts as bool values in GIT_TEST_* environment variables, and error out loud and clear on invalid values instead of simply skipping tests. Add the 'test_bool_env' helper function to encapsulate the invocation of 'git env--helper' and the verification of its exit code, and replace all invocations of that command in our test framework and test suite with a call to this new helper (except in 't0017-env-helper.sh', of course). $ GIT_TEST_GIT_DAEMON=YesPlease ./t5570-git-daemon.sh fatal: bad numeric config value 'YesPlease' for 'GIT_TEST_GIT_DAEMON': invalid unit error: test_bool_env requires bool values both for $GIT_TEST_GIT_DAEMON and for the default fallback Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-22 14:14:36 +01:00
test_expect_success 'test_bool_env' '
(
sane_unset envvar &&
test_bool_env envvar true &&
! test_bool_env envvar false &&
envvar= &&
export envvar &&
! test_bool_env envvar true &&
! test_bool_env envvar false &&
envvar=true &&
test_bool_env envvar true &&
test_bool_env envvar false &&
envvar=false &&
! test_bool_env envvar true &&
! test_bool_env envvar false &&
envvar=invalid &&
# When encountering an invalid bool value, test_bool_env
# prints its error message to the original stderr of the
# test script, hence the redirection of fd 7, and aborts
# with "exit 1", hence the subshell.
! ( test_bool_env envvar true ) 7>err &&
grep "error: test_bool_env requires bool values" err &&
envvar=true &&
! ( test_bool_env envvar invalid ) 7>err &&
grep "error: test_bool_env requires bool values" err
)
'
################################################################
# Basics of the basics
test_oid_cache <<\EOF
path0f sha1:f87290f8eb2cbbea7857214459a0739927eab154
path0f sha256:638106af7c38be056f3212cbd7ac65bc1bac74f420ca5a436ff006a9d025d17d
path0s sha1:15a98433ae33114b085f3eb3bb03b832b3180a01
path0s sha256:3a24cc53cf68edddac490bbf94a418a52932130541361f685df685e41dd6c363
path2f sha1:3feff949ed00a62d9f7af97c15cd8a30595e7ac7
path2f sha256:2a7f36571c6fdbaf0e3f62751a0b25a3f4c54d2d1137b3f4af9cb794bb498e5f
path2s sha1:d8ce161addc5173867a3c3c730924388daedbc38
path2s sha256:18fd611b787c2e938ddcc248fabe4d66a150f9364763e9ec133dd01d5bb7c65a
path2d sha1:58a09c23e2ca152193f2786e06986b7b6712bdbe
path2d sha256:00e4b32b96e7e3d65d79112dcbea53238a22715f896933a62b811377e2650c17
path3f sha1:0aa34cae68d0878578ad119c86ca2b5ed5b28376
path3f sha256:09f58616b951bd571b8cb9dc76d372fbb09ab99db2393f5ab3189d26c45099ad
path3s sha1:8599103969b43aff7e430efea79ca4636466794f
path3s sha256:fce1aed087c053306f3f74c32c1a838c662bbc4551a7ac2420f5d6eb061374d0
path3d sha1:21ae8269cacbe57ae09138dcc3a2887f904d02b3
path3d sha256:9b60497be959cb830bf3f0dc82bcc9ad9e925a24e480837ade46b2295e47efe1
subp3f sha1:00fb5908cb97c2564a9783c0c64087333b3b464f
subp3f sha256:a1a9e16998c988453f18313d10375ee1d0ddefe757e710dcae0d66aa1e0c58b3
subp3s sha1:6649a1ebe9e9f1c553b66f5a6e74136a07ccc57c
subp3s sha256:81759d9f5e93c6546ecfcadb560c1ff057314b09f93fe8ec06e2d8610d34ef10
subp3d sha1:3c5e5399f3a333eddecce7a9b9465b63f65f51e2
subp3d sha256:76b4ef482d4fa1c754390344cf3851c7f883b27cf9bc999c6547928c46aeafb7
root sha1:087704a96baf1c2d1c869a8b084481e121c88b5b
root sha256:9481b52abab1b2ffeedbf9de63ce422b929f179c1b98ff7bee5f8f1bc0710751
simpletree sha1:7bb943559a305bdd6bdee2cef6e5df2413c3d30a
simpletree sha256:1710c07a6c86f9a3c7376364df04c47ee39e5a5e221fcdd84b743bc9bb7e2bc5
EOF
# updating a new file without --add should fail.
test_expect_success 'git update-index without --add should fail adding' '
test_must_fail git update-index should-be-empty
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
'
# and with --add it should succeed, even if it is empty (it used to fail).
test_expect_success 'git update-index with --add should succeed' '
git update-index --add should-be-empty
'
test_expect_success 'writing tree out with git write-tree' '
tree=$(git write-tree)
'
# we know the shape and contents of the tree and know the object ID for it.
test_expect_success 'validate object ID of a known tree' '
test "$tree" = "$(test_oid simpletree)"
'
# Removing paths.
test_expect_success 'git update-index without --remove should fail removing' '
rm -f should-be-empty full-of-directories &&
test_must_fail git update-index should-be-empty
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$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_expect_success 'git update-index with --remove should be able to remove' '
git update-index --remove should-be-empty
'
# Empty tree can be written with recent write-tree.
test_expect_success 'git write-tree should be able to write an empty tree' '
tree=$(git write-tree)
'
test_expect_success 'validate object ID of a known tree' '
test "$tree" = $EMPTY_TREE
'
# Various types of objects
test_expect_success 'adding various types of objects with git update-index --add' '
mkdir path2 path3 path3/subp3 &&
paths="path0 path2/file2 path3/file3 path3/subp3/file3" &&
(
for p in $paths
do
echo "hello $p" >$p || exit 1
test_ln_s_add "hello $p" ${p}sym || exit 1
done
) &&
find path* ! -type d -print | xargs git update-index --add
'
# Show them and see that matches what we expect.
test_expect_success 'showing stage with git ls-files --stage' '
git ls-files --stage >current
'
test_expect_success 'validate git ls-files output for a known tree' '
cat >expected <<-EOF &&
100644 $(test_oid path0f) 0 path0
120000 $(test_oid path0s) 0 path0sym
100644 $(test_oid path2f) 0 path2/file2
120000 $(test_oid path2s) 0 path2/file2sym
100644 $(test_oid path3f) 0 path3/file3
120000 $(test_oid path3s) 0 path3/file3sym
100644 $(test_oid subp3f) 0 path3/subp3/file3
120000 $(test_oid subp3s) 0 path3/subp3/file3sym
EOF
test_cmp expected current
'
test_expect_success 'writing tree out with git write-tree' '
tree=$(git write-tree)
'
test_expect_success 'validate object ID for a known tree' '
test "$tree" = "$(test_oid root)"
'
test_expect_success 'showing tree with git ls-tree' '
git ls-tree $tree >current
'
test_expect_success 'git ls-tree output for a known tree' '
cat >expected <<-EOF &&
100644 blob $(test_oid path0f) path0
120000 blob $(test_oid path0s) path0sym
040000 tree $(test_oid path2d) path2
040000 tree $(test_oid path3d) path3
EOF
test_cmp expected current
'
# This changed in ls-tree pathspec change -- recursive does
# not show tree nodes anymore.
test_expect_success 'showing tree with git ls-tree -r' '
git ls-tree -r $tree >current
'
test_expect_success 'git ls-tree -r output for a known tree' '
cat >expected <<-EOF &&
100644 blob $(test_oid path0f) path0
120000 blob $(test_oid path0s) path0sym
100644 blob $(test_oid path2f) path2/file2
120000 blob $(test_oid path2s) path2/file2sym
100644 blob $(test_oid path3f) path3/file3
120000 blob $(test_oid path3s) path3/file3sym
100644 blob $(test_oid subp3f) path3/subp3/file3
120000 blob $(test_oid subp3s) path3/subp3/file3sym
EOF
test_cmp expected current
'
# But with -r -t we can have both.
test_expect_success 'showing tree with git ls-tree -r -t' '
git ls-tree -r -t $tree >current
'
test_expect_success 'git ls-tree -r output for a known tree' '
cat >expected <<-EOF &&
100644 blob $(test_oid path0f) path0
120000 blob $(test_oid path0s) path0sym
040000 tree $(test_oid path2d) path2
100644 blob $(test_oid path2f) path2/file2
120000 blob $(test_oid path2s) path2/file2sym
040000 tree $(test_oid path3d) path3
100644 blob $(test_oid path3f) path3/file3
120000 blob $(test_oid path3s) path3/file3sym
040000 tree $(test_oid subp3d) path3/subp3
100644 blob $(test_oid subp3f) path3/subp3/file3
120000 blob $(test_oid subp3s) path3/subp3/file3sym
EOF
test_cmp expected current
'
test_expect_success 'writing partial tree out with git write-tree --prefix' '
ptree=$(git write-tree --prefix=path3)
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$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'validate object ID for a known tree' '
test "$ptree" = $(test_oid path3d)
'
test_expect_success 'writing partial tree out with git write-tree --prefix' '
ptree=$(git write-tree --prefix=path3/subp3)
'
test_expect_success 'validate object ID for a known tree' '
test "$ptree" = $(test_oid subp3d)
'
test_expect_success 'put invalid objects into the index' '
rm -f .git/index &&
suffix=$(echo $ZERO_OID | sed -e "s/^.//") &&
cat >badobjects <<-EOF &&
100644 blob $(test_oid 001) dir/file1
100644 blob $(test_oid 002) dir/file2
100644 blob $(test_oid 003) dir/file3
100644 blob $(test_oid 004) dir/file4
100644 blob $(test_oid 005) dir/file5
EOF
git update-index --index-info <badobjects
'
test_expect_success 'writing this tree without --missing-ok' '
test_must_fail git write-tree
'
test_expect_success 'writing this tree with --missing-ok' '
git write-tree --missing-ok
'
################################################################
test_expect_success 'git read-tree followed by write-tree should be idempotent' '
rm -f .git/index &&
git read-tree $tree &&
test_path_is_file .git/index &&
newtree=$(git write-tree) &&
test "$newtree" = "$tree"
'
test_expect_success 'validate git diff-files output for a know cache/work tree state' '
cat >expected <<EOF &&
:100644 100644 $(test_oid path0f) $ZERO_OID M path0
:120000 120000 $(test_oid path0s) $ZERO_OID M path0sym
:100644 100644 $(test_oid path2f) $ZERO_OID M path2/file2
:120000 120000 $(test_oid path2s) $ZERO_OID M path2/file2sym
:100644 100644 $(test_oid path3f) $ZERO_OID M path3/file3
:120000 120000 $(test_oid path3s) $ZERO_OID M path3/file3sym
:100644 100644 $(test_oid subp3f) $ZERO_OID M path3/subp3/file3
:120000 120000 $(test_oid subp3s) $ZERO_OID M path3/subp3/file3sym
EOF
git diff-files >current &&
test_cmp expected current
'
test_expect_success 'git update-index --refresh should succeed' '
git update-index --refresh
'
test_expect_success 'no diff after checkout and git update-index --refresh' '
git diff-files >current &&
cmp -s current /dev/null
'
################################################################
P=$(test_oid root)
test_expect_success 'git commit-tree records the correct tree in a commit' '
commit0=$(echo NO | git commit-tree $P) &&
git show --pretty=raw $commit0 >out &&
tree=$(sed -n -e "s/^tree //p" -e "/^author /q" out) &&
test "z$tree" = "z$P"
'
test_expect_success 'git commit-tree records the correct parent in a commit' '
commit1=$(echo NO | git commit-tree $P -p $commit0) &&
git show --pretty=raw $commit1 >out &&
parent=$(sed -n -e "s/^parent //p" -e "/^author /q" out) &&
test "z$commit0" = "z$parent"
'
test_expect_success 'git commit-tree omits duplicated parent in a commit' '
commit2=$(echo NO | git commit-tree $P -p $commit0 -p $commit0) &&
git show --pretty=raw $commit2 >out &&
cat >match.sed <<-\EOF &&
s/^parent //p
/^author /q
EOF
parent=$(sed -n -f match.sed out | sort -u) &&
test "z$commit0" = "z$parent" &&
git show --pretty=raw $commit2 >out &&
test_stdout_line_count = 1 sed -n -f match.sed out
'
test_expect_success 'update-index D/F conflict' '
mv path0 tmp &&
mv path2 path0 &&
mv tmp path2 &&
git update-index --add --replace path2 path0/file2 &&
git ls-files path0 >tmp &&
numpath0=$(wc -l <tmp) &&
test $numpath0 = 1
'
test_expect_success 'very long name in the index handled sanely' '
a=a && # 1
a=$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a && # 16
a=$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a && # 256
a=$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a$a && # 4096
a=${a}q &&
>path4 &&
git update-index --add path4 &&
git ls-files -s path4 >tmp &&
(
sed -e "s/ .*/ /" tmp |
tr -d "\012" &&
echo "$a"
) | git update-index --index-info &&
git ls-files "a*" >tmp &&
len=$(wc -c <tmp) &&
test $len = 4098
'
test_expect_success 'test_must_fail on a failing git command' '
test_must_fail git notacommand
'
test_expect_success 'test_must_fail on a failing git command with env' '
test_must_fail env var1=a var2=b git notacommand
'
test_expect_success 'test_must_fail rejects a non-git command' '
! test_must_fail grep ^$ notafile 2>err &&
grep -F "test_must_fail: only '"'"'git'"'"' is allowed" err
'
test_expect_success 'test_must_fail rejects a non-git command with env' '
! test_must_fail env var1=a var2=b grep ^$ notafile 2>err &&
grep -F "test_must_fail: only '"'"'git'"'"' is allowed" err
'
test_done