Re: 05no-escape-on-AT_CHECK-strings

[Derek Robert Price]

Akim Demaille wrote:

> Derek> Akim Demaille wrote:
> >> I am absolutely against this patch.  Revert it.
> >> 
> >> If you want something like this, you will first need to explain it.
> >> 
>
> Derek> Again, CVS's current test suite often compares program output against
> Derek> shell variables defined earlier in the script.
>
> Then save these values in an expout file, and use [expout] as STDOUT
> value.
>  

The CVS test suite uses this almost every test.  I could implement this 
as an m4 macro in the CVS test suite, but had thought it had some more 
general usefulness.  How would you feel about an extra macro, perhaps 
AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE or the like which ran AT_CHECK to expout then allowed 
shell expansion on the args before comparison?

I also wanted to implement an AT_CHECK_EXPR (now AT_CHECK_EXPR & 
AT_CHECK_EXPR_NOESCAPE?) which used expr rather than diff to compare the 
strings.  One example of where this is useful with CVS is in that CVS's 
includes dates in much of its output.  Since these dates change 
depending on when the test is run, CVS's test suite often uses ${DATE}, 
which expands to a regexp which will match the date format though no 
particular date, to match dates in tests where the date is not the 
central issue being tested.

Again, I had thought these additions of some general usefulness.  Do I 
really need to confine them to the CVS test suite?

Derek

--
               *8^)

Email: address@hidden

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
--
I will not bury the new kid.
I will not bury the new kid.
I will not bury the new kid...

         - Bart Simpson on chalkboard, _The Simpsons_