Re: [OUTREACHY][PATCH v1] t7006: Use test_path_is_* functions in test script

[Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>]

Hi Joey

On 20/10/2020 08:24, Joey S wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thank you very much for the input and feedback, it's much appreciated.
> 
>> All this text above is useful context for reviewers but appears as part
>> of the commit message which is not what you want. If you add notes after
>> the `---` line below then they will not end up in the commit message.
>>
> Understood, thank you.
> 
>>> Modernized the test by replacing 'test -e' instances with
>>> test_path_is_file helper functions.
>>
>> s/Modernized/Modernize/
> Will do in the amended commit next.
> 
>>> -   ! test_path_is_file paginated.out
>>
>> It would be better to replace`! test -e` this with
>> `test_path_is_missing` as the modified test will pass if paginated.out
>> exists but is not a file. `test_path_is_missing` will print an
>> appropriate diagnostic message as well.
> 
> Thank you for the explanation : )
> 
> After replacing `! test -e` with `! test_path_is_missing paginated.out` however, the changed test cases are failing;
> ```
> $ cd t/ && prove t7006-pager.sht7006-pager.sh .. Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100)
> Failed 3/101 subtests
> 
> Test Summary Report
> -------------------
> t7006-pager.sh (Wstat: 256 Tests: 101 Failed: 3)
>    Failed tests:  7-9
>    Non-zero exit status: 1
> Files=1, Tests=101,  5 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr  0.00 sys +  3.49 cusr  0.65 csys =  4.17 CPU)
> Result: FAIL
> ```
> Is this the behavior I should be expecting?

No it's not! As one aspect of this process is to help candidates improve 
their understanding I'll give you a hint rather than the whole answer. 
`test -e <path>` checks whether <path> exists and exits 0 if it does and 
the shell treats an exit code of 0 as success. `!` inverts the 
success/failure of the command  that follows it. Using that and looking 
at the definition of test_file_is_missing in t/test-lib-functions.sh see 
if you can fix the conversion so that the tests pass. If you get stuck 
do let me know and I'll try and help some more.

Best Wishes

Phillip

>> ...Alternatively, this would fit just fine in a cover letter. Usually
>> cover letters are not necessary for single patches (where the patch
>> message itself conveys the full message, or a little bit of additional
>> context below the triple-dash line is all that's necessary to clarify
>> the intent). But, if you want to introduce yourself, a 0/1 cover letter
>> is fine, too.
> 
> Will keep this in mind, thank you Taylor.
> 
>>> One thing missed by other commenters: the Developer's Certificate of
>>> Origin line - which is what this indicates - should have your "full
>>> name".
>>
>> ... and it must match the authorship.
> 
> Changed, thank you both for catching that.
> 
> Thank you all,
> Joey
> 
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Monday, October 19, 2020 7:59 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> Emily Shaffer emilyshaffer@google.com writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 04:26:07AM +0000, Joey S wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> Hi Joey and welcome.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: JoeyS jgsal@yahoo.com
>>>
>>> One thing missed by other commenters: the Developer's Certificate of
>>> Origin line - which is what this indicates - should have your "full
>>> name".
>>
>> ... and it must match the authorship.
>>
>>> So in my case, I sign my patches 'Emily Shaffer
>>> emilyshaffer@google.com'. If I'm wrong that's fine, but JoeyS sounds
>>> like a name and initial rather than a full name.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing it out.
>>
>> If somebody from the "mentoring" group is taking a tally, it might
>> not be a bad idea to identify which style and procedure rules are
>> often failed to be followed by new contributors so that we can
>> figure out ways to make them stand out in our documentation set
>> (e.g. Documentation/SubmittingPatches but maybe a separate cheat
>> sheet might be worth having).
>>
>> Thanks.
> 
>