On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > SZEDER Gábor <[email protected]> writes: > >> See two of the previous patches for the only such cases we had in our >> test suite. However, reliably preventing this antipattern is arguably >> more important than supporting these cases, which can be worked around >> by only minor inconveniences. > > I am not sure if that inconveniences will be minor. Is this too > contrived an example, for example? > > check () { > pattern=$1 file=$2 script=./runme > > test_i18ngrep "$pattern" "$file" && > write_script "$script" && > test_expect_success "check $pattern" ' > "$script" > ' > } > > check foo file <<-EOF > ... test script comes here ... > EOF
With 'test_i18ngrep' outside the 'test_expect_success' block!? Definitely too contrived. :) OTOH, what about flipping the order of 'test_i18ngrep' and 'write_script'? If we can't do that, then I wonder what the reason might be that is not too contrived. >> >> Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <[email protected]> >> --- >> t/test-lib-functions.sh | 4 ++++ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh >> index 92ed02937..e381d50d0 100644 >> --- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh >> +++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh >> @@ -719,6 +719,10 @@ test_i18ncmp () { >> # under GETTEXT_POISON this pretends that the command produced expected >> # results. >> test_i18ngrep () { >> + ( read line ) && >> + error "bug in the test script: data on test_i18ngrep's stdin;" \ >> + "perhaps a git command's output is piped into it?" >> + >> if test -n "$GETTEXT_POISON" >> then >> : # pretend success
