Subject: Re: [PATCH] t0091-bugreport.sh: actually verify some content of report

From: SZEDER Gábor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:44:15 +0200

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 04:33:54PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> In the first test in this script, 'creates a report with content in the
> right places', we generate a report and pipe it into our helper
> `check_all_headers_populated()`. The idea of the helper is to find all
> lines that look like headers ("[Some Header Here]") and to check that
> the next line is non-empty. This is supposed to catch erroneous outputs
> such as the following:
> 
>   [A Header]
>   something
>   more here
> 
>   [Another Header]
> 
>   [Too Early Header]
>   contents
> 
> However, we provide the lines of the bug report as filenames to grep,
> meaning we mostly end up spewing errors:
> 
>   grep: : No such file or directory
>   grep: [System Info]: No such file or directory
>   grep: git version:: No such file or directory
>   grep: git version 2.31.1.164.g984c2561cd: No such file
> 
> This doesn't disturb the test, which tugs along and reports success, not
> really having verified the contents of the report at all.
> 
> Note that after 788a776069 ("bugreport: collect list of populated
> hooks", 2020-05-07), the bug report, which is created in our hook-less
> test repo, contains an empty section with the enabled hooks. Thus, even
> the intention of our helper is a bit misguided: there is nothing
> inherently wrong with having an empty section in the bug report.
> 
> Let's instead grep for some contents that we expect to find in a bug
> report. We won't verify that they appear in the right order, but at
> least we end up verifying the contents more than before this commit.
> 
> Reported-by: SZEDER Gábor <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  > It does scare me..
> 
>  Maybe something like this?

Thanks!

>  t/t0091-bugreport.sh | 26 +++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/t/t0091-bugreport.sh b/t/t0091-bugreport.sh
> index 526304ff95..9111c4c26f 100755
> --- a/t/t0091-bugreport.sh
> +++ b/t/t0091-bugreport.sh
> @@ -4,29 +4,13 @@ test_description='git bugreport'
>  
>  . ./test-lib.sh
>  
> -# Headers "[System Info]" will be followed by a non-empty line if we put some
> -# information there; we can make sure all our headers were followed by some
> -# information to check if the command was successful.
> -HEADER_PATTERN="^\[.*\]$"
> -
> -check_all_headers_populated () {
> -	while read -r line
> -	do
> -		if test "$(grep "$HEADER_PATTERN" "$line")"
> -		then
> -			echo "$line"
> -			read -r nextline
> -			if test -z "$nextline"; then
> -				return 1;
> -			fi
> -		fi
> -	done
> -}
> -
> -test_expect_success 'creates a report with content in the right places' '
> +test_expect_success 'creates a report with content' '
>  	test_when_finished rm git-bugreport-check-headers.txt &&
>  	git bugreport -s check-headers &&
> -	check_all_headers_populated <git-bugreport-check-headers.txt
> +	grep "^Please answer " git-bugreport-check-headers.txt &&

This "Please answer" is translated and you look for it with plain
'grep' instead of 'test_i18ngrep', which is fine nowadays...  However,
Junio queued this patch on top of v2.29.3, which is old enough to
still have the GETTEXT_POISON CI job, and fails because of this.

> +	grep "^\[System Info\]$" git-bugreport-check-headers.txt &&
> +	grep "^git version:$" git-bugreport-check-headers.txt &&
> +	grep "^\[Enabled Hooks\]$" git-bugreport-check-headers.txt
>  '

I have to wonder, however, whether this is worth testing at all.

>  
>  test_expect_success 'dies if file with same name as report already exists' '
> -- 
> 2.31.1.163.ga65ce7f831
>