Re: t5545: reduced test coverage
flat view
From: Ramsay Jones <hidden>
Date: 2017-05-17 20:49:09
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2017-05-18 · Re: t5545: reduced test coverage · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2017-05-17 · Re: t5545: reduced test coverage · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2017-05-17 · Re: t5545: reduced test coverage · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2017-05-16 · t5545: reduced test coverage · Ramsay Jones <hidden>
On 17/05/17 05:23, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:quoted
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:quoted
It appears to me that only a few tests in the entire script wants to work with HTTP server, so perhaps moving them to the end, together with the inclusion of lib-httpd and start_httpd that 438fc684 ("push options: pass push options to the transport helper", 2017-02-08) introduced, may be sufficient?Probably not, as lib-httpd, when it gives up, does the "skip_all=message; test_done" thing, which makes test_done to trigger this: # Maybe print SKIP message if test -n "$skip_all" && test $test_count -gt 0 then error "Can't use skip_all after running some tests" fi So a bit more work is needed, than just moving things around, I am afraid...And now I am visiting bf4b7219 ("test-lib.sh: Add check for invalid use of 'skip_all' facility", 2012-09-01), which is yours ;-)
Indeed. :-D
I am wondering what the fallouts would be if we did the following to test-lib. We used to say "1..0 # SKIP <why>" when we skip everything, which is still kept, so that prove can notice why things are skipped. When we abort early but after executing any test, we used to error out, but instead we pretend that the test finished right there, as it seems that we are not allowed to say "1..4 # SKIP <why>" after running 4 tests.
Yes, I had this exact 'Huh?' moment back in 2012. I remember spending quite a long time searching 'TAP specification' documents, in order to get an answer to this. It was so long ago (and I can't find the links to those documents now), but I have a vague recollection that prove's behaviour is correct in allowing '1..0 <skip message>', while throwing a fit at '1..n <any message>' (for n > 0). I would probably have simply split the test file into two, but ...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
t/test-lib.sh | 21 +++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh index 13b5696822..46f29cf112 100644 --- a/t/test-lib.sh +++ b/t/test-lib.sh@@ -745,20 +745,25 @@ test_done () { fi case "$test_failure" in 0) - # Maybe print SKIP message - if test -n "$skip_all" && test $test_count -gt 0 - then - error "Can't use skip_all after running some tests" - fi - test -z "$skip_all" || skip_all=" # SKIP $skip_all" - if test $test_external_has_tap -eq 0 then if test $test_remaining -gt 0 then say_color pass "# passed all $msg" fi - say "1..$test_count$skip_all" + + # Maybe print SKIP message + test -z "$skip_all" || skip_all="# SKIP $skip_all" + case "$test_count" in + 0) + say "1..$test_count${skip_all:+ $skip_all}" + ;; + *) + test -z "$skip_all" || + say_color warn "$skip_all" + say "1..$test_count" + ;; + esac fi test -d "$remove_trash" &&
... this looks good to me. (tested on Linux and cygwin). Thanks! ATB, Ramsay Jones