Re: [PATCH] t6022: Use -eq not = to test output of wc -l
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:50:03
Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
Johannes Sixt wrote:quoted
- It doesn't save any messages or fix-ups during review: instead of "do not quote!" we have to say "use test_line_count!".I was nervous about introducing test_line_count for that reason. Another consideration won out: not syntax but output format. See cae3aa79 (t6022 (renaming merge): chain test commands with &&, 2010-10-31). Kind of analogous to test_cmp, which is a similar headache to get used over less portable or less pleasant alternatives. If a piped variant is needed, I would prefer it to work something like this. Usage: { command_producing_five_lines | test_line_count = 5 - } Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <redacted> ---diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh index 1ea0116..35a5634 100644 --- a/t/test-lib.sh +++ b/t/test-lib.sh@@ -660,15 +660,24 @@ test_path_is_missing () { # output through when the number of lines is wrong. test_line_count () { + line_count_tmp= if test $# != 3 then error "bug in the test script: not 3 parameters to test_line_count" - elif ! test $(wc -l <"$3") "$1" "$2" + fi + if test "$3" = - + then + line_count_tmp=test_line_count.output + cat >"$line_count_tmp" + set -- "$1" "$2" "$line_count_tmp" + fi + if ! test $(wc -l <"$3") "$1" "$2" then echo "test_line_count: line count for $3 !$1 $2" cat "$3" return 1
You forgot to clean the temporary file here. Also if the file is huge, do we really want to cat the whole thing?
fi + rm -f "$line_count_tmp" } # This is not among top-level (test_expect_success | test_expect_failure)