From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCCDC433E7 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 16:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0245206E7 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 16:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727075AbgIBQiU (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:38:20 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com ([209.85.208.68]:45365 "EHLO mail-ed1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727088AbgIBQiN (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:38:13 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id l17so5554811edq.12 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 09:38:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5sbGL3mGfcDLDneBw3bC/WpSKdg+00jPtICN57tJmA4=; b=NUh2XsNb+jdFPsXe+p48UIkRyJG48AWX6YlXJFNbmbJ+h3IQTWIYcJoeRtHJHmfFNM dMuQ3ZHeLjo+UhJ6nuDlhVDWbsvwPZGFMok7RerDqIQs29lsVez0HyCyJFJIO0EnbCSx LSh5v2Qh8vLbjPBCKfY97e8Bx+G+eX7n7seJsXN5BHCD7G6sNrICbf0P1AvyaK+8KOuC W5mxu4smpzE9GfRywptWYeXqtBKmShYqTopzt1s0WwoHihOZ85/8ovaBG0W2RiPc85bG tUEUpOwjGVvNUlrlTZ5bC8rsSC9hthUqdCIx7y2KclepmPL6KcPdHY1xMXTNA2/2I7Tf oJcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338PlICMwtzNxP6REiYNBhlUoN0gNsCjGFIA6cd6By6veHAR7nD gHSENxZEo648advuIMPJmWe+jnEw0swyaa17ZvQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwYVoguVc0MsQQJelJWLc7CpiQihl5YT3utNTaRuPr9LVcPxltMUOnGDwRf5HrlohrCkndT1YDBbn2YJV48c8c= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:17ed:: with SMTP id t13mr910669edy.163.1599064691798; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 09:38:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References:

In-Reply-To: From: Eric Sunshine Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:38:00 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/8] t1308-config-set: avoid false positives when using test-config To: Matheus Tavares Bernardino Cc: Git List , Junio C Hamano , Derrick Stolee , Elijah Newren , Jonathan Tan , Jonathan Nieder Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:16 PM Matheus Tavares Bernardino wrote: > With that said, I'm wondering now whether we should change the > function's signature from: > > `check_config [expect_code

]   `
>
> to:
>
> `check_config   `
> `check_config expect_not_found   `
>
> The second form would then automatically expect exit code 1 and check
> stdout for the message 'Value not found for ""'. With this we
> can avoid wrong uses of check_config to check an arbitrary error code
> without also checking stderr.

Yes, that seems more straightforward. In fact, at this point, you
could just have two distinct functions and eliminate the ugly
complexity of the existing check_config() implementation. Perhaps
something like this (typed in email):

    check_config () {
        test_tool config "$1" "$2" >actual &&
        shift && shift &&
        printf "%s\n" "$@" >expect &&
        test_cmp expect actual
    }

    check_not_found () {
        test_expect_code 1 test_tool config "$1" "$2" >actual &&
        echo "Value not found for \"$2\"" >expect &&
        test_cmp expect actual
    }