On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:17:51 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:49:11 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > -test_expect_success 'emacs delivery of signed message' \
> > +test_expect_success GPG 'emacs delivery of signed message' \
>
> Hi, Pieter and Thomas. Thanks for all the work on this, but I have one
> issue. Is there a way we can do this without adding a new argument to
> every test function? For some reason I really don't like that solution.
> It seems too invasive. Can't we have something that works more like
> test_subtest_known_broken, that modifies the test environment, rather
> than add an argument to every call of every testing function?
>
> jamie.
I've been thinking the very same thing.
We could use `test_have_prereq' to get rid of the argument, e.g.:
#+begin_src sh
test_have_prereq EMACS && \
test_begin_subtest "blah"
echo "doing stuff..."
test_expect_equal_file OUTPUT EXPECTED
#+end_src
...but still, everything between `test_begin_subtest' and `test_expect_*'
would be executed, so to err on the safe side, we could wrap the full body
of every test, e.g.:
#+begin_src sh
test_begin_subtest "blah"
test_have_prereq EMACS && {
...
echo "doing stuff..."
...
}
test_expect_equal_file OUTPUT EXPECTED
#+end_src
Or... (I've given this zero thought, so please take it with a bag of
salt) we could run all tests from inside a "controller" which `eval's
their contents line by line, and skips a test entirely whenever $? > 0.
All of this is (still) excessively invasive in some way or another though...
Suggestions?
Peace
--
Pieter
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
