Some kind of "conformance" suite for in-step tests?
#490
thejcannon
started this conversation in
Ideas
Replies: 2 comments 2 replies
-
|
(Ideally it'd also allow us to flex #462) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
One way to test We'd want to unify (more) the code in |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
There's a definite pattern for the core tests a tool should have:
checkexits nonzero on bad filecheckexits zero on good filecheckexists nonzero on bothcheck_list_filesexits nonzero with filename on bad filecheck_list_filesexits zero with no output on good filecheck_list_filesexits nonzero with just bad filename on bothcheck_diffexits nonzero on bad file with the diffcheck_diffexits zero on good filecheck_diffexits nonzero on both, with bad file difffixexits zero on bad file, and fixes the filefixexits zero on good filefixexits zero on both (and fixes the bad file)fixexits nonzero when it fixes some but not all issuesIdeally, steps can use/configure/opt-in to a pre-fabricated set of test cases for the above.
Something like this would be helpful to easily find (and fix) bugs like the
pkl formatone in #489.Additionally, it would also help strengthen the case of suggesting conformity a la this pkl format issue or this
shfmtissueBeta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions