Re: [PATCH v5 2/8] t1308-config-set: avoid false positives when using test-config

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:16 PM Matheus Tavares Bernardino
[off-list ref] wrote:

With that said, I'm wondering now whether we should change the
function's signature from:

`check_config [expect_code <code>] <cmd> <key> <expected_value>`

to:

`check_config <cmd> <key> <expected_value>`
`check_config expect_not_found <cmd> <key> <value>`

The second form would then automatically expect exit code 1 and check
stdout for the message 'Value not found for "<value>"'. With this we
can avoid wrong uses of check_config to check an arbitrary error code
without also checking stderr.

Yes, that seems more straightforward. In fact, at this point, you
could just have two distinct functions and eliminate the ugly
complexity of the existing check_config() implementation. Perhaps
something like this (typed in email):

    check_config () {
        test_tool config "$1" "$2" >actual &&
        shift && shift &&
        printf "%s\n" "$@" >expect &&
        test_cmp expect actual
    }

    check_not_found () {
        test_expect_code 1 test_tool config "$1" "$2" >actual &&
        echo "Value not found for \"$2\"" >expect &&
        test_cmp expect actual
    }