[PATCH] test: make test_expect_equal_file() arguments flexible
Dmitry Kurochkin
dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com
Wed Feb 1 01:19:31 PST 2012
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:47:30 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:19:54 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The down side of this approach is that diff argument order depends on
> > test_expect_equal_file() argument order. So sometimes we get diff
> > from expected to actual results, and sometimes the other way around.
> > But the files are always named correctly.
>
> Actually, I think this last point is the most important thing to retain.
> Consistency in the diffs makes reading test results much more efficient.
> The order I don't much care about. But seeing as we have been
> consistent with a particular order for a while, it seems like more
> effort than it's worth to change it.
>
It is not true that we are consistent with test_expect_equal_file()
argument order. If we were, I would not bother. The problem is we are
not. I remember that we already fixed argument order for
test_expect_equal() and/or test_expect_equal_file(). If we do not solve
this problem, we should make it a tradition.
Consistent diff would be good. But IMO the current situation is worse:
we are *supposed* to have consistent diff output, but in reality we have
messed diff output.
Also please consider the following points:
* Usually one is looking at a single failing test. So it is not like
you have a series of inconsistent diffs.
* I personally can not remember the argument and diff order. So each
time I need to understand the diff, I look at the beginning to see
which side is where anyway.
So IMHO diff order is not that important. But I would like to see a
better solution. Perhaps Tomi's proposal would be the one.
Regards,
Dmitry
> jamie.
More information about the notmuch
mailing list