Re: [PATCH] {master} tests: add testcases sanity-checking the testsuite

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:25:18PM CET:
> On Thursday 24 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > What does the S_ prefix stand for?  Sanity?
> >
> Yes (or also "self-check").  It also ensures (when LC_COLLATE=C or
> equivalent) that the new testcases are listed earlier by e.g. ls or
> shell wildcarding, and that are run early, (mostly) before all the
> other testcases.
> 
> > Well, we can keep (or lose) our sanity over all kinds of things.  ;-)
> > How about 'defs-' as prefix, or maybe 'suite-'?
> >
> Weren't you the one fond of shorter test names? ;-)

Yes, but only those I already knew.  ;->

> Kidding aside, I'd rather keep the new testcases standing out more
> clearly (as they do with the current `S_' prefix).  So for the moment
> I haven't renamed them.  But feel free to advance other proposals, or
> to override my decision if the current naming really bothers you.

How about 'self-' as prefix, or maybe even 'self-check-' then?
With S_, there is really no clue to understand, and also underscores
are harder to type.  You might laugh at this argument, but look around
GNU code how it tends to prefer hyphen over underscore whenever possible
(and rejects capitalized names).

> I'll push in 72 hours if there are no further inputs or objections.

Well, one issue I noticed, and one general comment:
Please try your tests when $sh_errexit_works is "no" (you can fake
that), fix the fallout.

Generally, you can't test the testsuite internals with absolute
certainty from within.  Say, there is a bug that lets every test
pass: you will not notice it without some manual looking at logs.
(XFAILing tests can be of help here, but only if the suite is not
buggy to mis-detect them too.)

Thanks,
Ralf