Re: [PATCH 4/5] test: improve rebase -q test

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Let's show the output so it's clear why it failed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  t/t3400-rebase.sh | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/t/t3400-rebase.sh b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
> > index b58fa1a..fb39531 100755
> > --- a/t/t3400-rebase.sh
> > +++ b/t/t3400-rebase.sh
> > @@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ test_expect_success 'default to @{upstream} when upstream arg is missing' '
> >  test_expect_success 'rebase -q is quiet' '
> >  	git checkout -b quiet topic &&
> >  	git rebase -q master >output.out 2>&1 &&
> > +	cat output.out &&
> >  	test ! -s output.out
> >  '
> 
> It is one thing to avoid squelching output that naturally comes out
> of command being tested unnecessarily, so that "./txxxx-*.sh -v"
> output can be used for debugging.  I however am not sure if adding
> "cat" to random places like this is a productive direction for us to
> go in.
> 
> A more preferrable alternative may be adding something like this to
> test-lib.sh and call it from here and elsewhere (there are about 50
> places that do "test ! -s <filename>"), perhaps?
> 
>         test_must_be_an_empty_file () {
>                 if test -s "$1"
>                 then
>                         cat "$1"
>                         false
>                 fi
>         }

Perhaps, but I'm not interested. I'm tired of obvious fixes getting rejected
for hypothetical "ideal" situations that we'll never reach.

-- 
Felipe Contreras