Quoting Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com>:
Tests run by test_rev_parse() are nearly identical; each invokes
git-rev-parse with a single option and compares the result against an
expected value. Such duplication makes it onerous to extend the tests
since any change needs to be repeated in each test. Avoid the
duplication by parameterizing the test and driving it via a for-loop.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com>
---
t/t1500-rev-parse.sh | 44 +++++++++++++++++---------------------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/t/t1500-rev-parse.sh b/t/t1500-rev-parse.sh
index 0194f54..c84f5c3 100755
--- a/t/t1500-rev-parse.sh
+++ b/t/t1500-rev-parse.sh
+ for o in is-bare-repository \
+ is-inside-git-dir \
+ is-inside-work-tree \
+ show-prefix \
+ git-dir
+ do
+ test $# -eq 0 && break
+ expect="$1"
+ test_expect_success "$name: $o" '
+ echo "$expect" >expect &&
+ git rev-parse --$o >actual &&
I think that "--$o" looks really weird, but that's subjective, of course.
However, the idea popped up in an other thread[1] that we might want
something like 'git rev-parse --absolute-path --git-dir', which wouldn't
really work with '--$o'.
Even if we don't go that route, perhaps it would be better to list the
options to be tested including their doubledash prefix.
[1] -
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/287449/focus=292585
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
