On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> Existing tests in t0040 follow a rather verbose pattern:
>
> cat >expect <<\EOF
> boolean: 0
> integer: 0
> magnitude: 0
> timestamp: 0
> string: (not set)
> abbrev: 7
> verbose: 0
> quiet: 3
> dry run: no
> file: (not set)
> EOF
>
> test_expect_success 'multiple quiet levels' '
> test-parse-options -q -q -q >output 2>output.err &&
> test_must_be_empty output.err &&
> test_cmp expect output
> '
>
> But the only thing this test cares about is if "quiet: 3" is in the
> output. We should be able to write the above 18 lines with just
> four lines, like this:
>
> test_expect_success 'multiple quiet levels' '
> test-parse-options --expect="quiet: 3" -q -q -q
> '
>
> Teach the new --expect=<string> option to test-parse-options helper.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
> ---
> t/t0040-parse-options.sh | 1 +
> test-parse-options.c | 68
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t0040-parse-options.sh b/t/t0040-parse-options.sh
> index dbaee55..d678fbf 100755
> --- a/t/t0040-parse-options.sh
> +++ b/t/t0040-parse-options.sh
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ Standard options
> -v, --verbose be verbose
> -n, --dry-run dry run
> -q, --quiet be quiet
> + --expect <string> expected output in the variable dump
>
> EOF
>
> diff --git a/test-parse-options.c b/test-parse-options.c
> index 3db4332..010f3b2 100644
> --- a/test-parse-options.c
> +++ b/test-parse-options.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ static char *string = NULL;
> static char *file = NULL;
> static int ambiguous;
> static struct string_list list;
> +static struct string_list expect;
>
> static struct {
> int called;
> @@ -40,6 +41,62 @@ static int number_callback(const struct option *opt, const
> char *arg, int unset)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * See if expect->string ("label: value") has a line in output that
> + * begins with "label:", and if the line in output matches it.
> + */
> +static int match_line(struct string_list_item *expect, struct strbuf *output)
> +{
> + const char *label = expect->string;
> + const char *colon = strchr(label, ':');
> + const char *scan = output->buf;
> + size_t label_len, expect_len;
> +
> + if (!colon)
> + die("Malformed --expect value: %s", label);
> + label_len = colon - label;
> +
> + while (scan < output->buf + output->len) {
> + const char *next;
> + scan = memmem(scan, output->buf + output->len - scan,
> + label, label_len);
> + if (!scan)
> + return 0;
> + if (scan == output->buf || scan[-1] == '\n')
Does scan[-1] work for the first line?
> + break;
> + next = strchr(scan + label_len, '\n');
> + if (!next)
> + return 0;
> + scan = next + 1;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * scan points at a line that begins with the label we are
> + * looking for. Does it match?
> + */
> + expect_len = strlen(expect->string);
> +
> + if (output->buf + output->len <= scan + expect_len)
> + return 0; /* value not long enough */
> + if (memcmp(scan, expect->string, expect_len))
> + return 0; /* does not match */
> +
> + return (scan + expect_len < output->buf + output->len &&
> + scan[expect_len] == '\n');
> +}
> +
> +static int show_expected(struct string_list *list, struct strbuf *output)
> +{
> + struct string_list_item *expect;
> + int found_mismatch = 0;
> +
> + for_each_string_list_item(expect, list) {
> + if (!match_line(expect, output))
> + found_mismatch = 1;
> + }
> + return found_mismatch;
> +}
> +
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> const char *prefix = "prefix/";
> @@ -87,6 +144,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> OPT__VERBOSE(&verbose, "be verbose"),
> OPT__DRY_RUN(&dry_run, "dry run"),
> OPT__QUIET(&quiet, "be quiet"),
> + OPT_STRING_LIST(0, "expect", &expect, "string",
> + "expected output in the variable dump"),
> OPT_END(),
> };
> int i;
> @@ -117,7 +176,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> for (i = 0; i < argc; i++)
> strbuf_addf(&output, "arg %02d: %s\n", i, argv[i]);
>
> - printf("%s", output.buf);
> -
> - return 0;
> + if (expect.nr)
> + return show_expected(&expect, &output);
On a philosophical level this patch series is adding a
trailing "|grep $X" for the test-parse-options.
I think such a grep pattern is a good thing because it is
cheap to implement in unix like environments.
This however is a lot of C code for finding specific subsets
in the output, so it is not quite cheap. Then we could also go
the non-wasteful way and instead check what to add to the strbuf
instead of filtering afterwards, i.e. each strbuf_add is guarded by
an
if (is_interesting_output(...))
strbuf_add(...)
> + else {
> + printf("%s", output.buf);
> + return 0;
> + }
> }
> --
> 2.8.2-505-gdbd0e1d
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
