automake-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] {maint} tests: new subroutines for test skipping/failing


From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [PATCH] {maint} tests: new subroutines for test skipping/failing
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:44:57 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

On Tuesday 18 January 2011, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> +# This is useful when using automake's parallel tests mode, to print
> >> +# the reason for skip/failure to console, rather than to the .log files.
> >> +: ${stderr_fileno_=2}
> >> +
> >> +warn_() { echo "$@" 1>&$stderr_fileno_; }
> >> +fail_() { warn_ "$me: failed test: $@"; Exit 1; }
> >> +skip_() { warn_ "$me: skipped test: $@"; Exit 77; }
> >> +framework_failure_() { warn_ "$me: set-up failure: $@"; Exit 99; }
> >
> > space before ()
> 
> I don't mind adding spaces before () in gnulib's copy, if that makes
> it easier for you.  However, I normally use a space there for readability
> (in shell scripts, at least -- no risk of automatic formatters ;-),
> but with those trailing underscores serving much the same purpose,
> the existing formatting does not bother me at all.  Hmm... though
> now that I think of it, with the existing formatting, it is perhaps
> too easy to mistake those function names for their underscore-free
> versions.  So I'll change it in gnulib.
> 
> However, I think that spreading those four function definitions onto 12
> or more lines for the sake of formatting would represent a significant
> net loss in readability.
> 
FWIW, I'm fine with keeping the formatting of those function definitions
as close as possible to the copy in gnulib: I'm not bothered if they're
not 100% complaint with GNU formatting standards.  OTOH, this is Ralf's
call in the end, so I'll follow his decision (P.S. He seems to agree with
me on this).

Regards,
  Stefano



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]