[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#59028: [PATCH] Rewrite the `kill-buffer-delete-auto-save' tests
|
From: |
Matt Armstrong |
|
Subject: |
bug#59028: [PATCH] Rewrite the `kill-buffer-delete-auto-save' tests |
|
Date: |
Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:52:43 -0800 |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Matt Armstrong <matt@rfc20.org>
>> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 15:53:05 -0700
>>
>> Rationale is in the commit description, but it boils down to these tests
>> being annoying for me recently. I like to M-x eval-buffer and run tests
>> interactively, but these tests seemed to work nicely only in batch mode.
>> In interactive mode they would both fail and issue annoying prompts
>> "save this modified buffer?" prompts. In fixing them, I figured out
>> what they were trying to test and attempted to make that more robust and
>> clear.
>
> Thanks, I installed this.
>
> However, the tests are still quite talkative, and emit a lot of stuff
> for which I see no purpose. Can we shut up those "BEGIN
> overlay-modification-hooks test-case ((insert-at . 1))" messages and
> also the "Auto-saving...", "Auto-saving...done"? Or do they serve
> some useful purpose?
See the attached patch, which either removes noisy messages or replaces
them with `ert-info'. I didn't know about `ert-info' when I added the
noisy messages.
As for the "Auto-saving..." messages, they are printed by calls to
`message1' in fileio.c. There may be a way to hide them, but see the
next paragraph.
There is a behavior difference between ert's interactive runner and
batch runner. In interactive mode all `message' output is redirected to
a buffer normally hidden, made visible only by request after the test
runs, and I expect people will look at these only when debugging failed
tests. In batch mode `message' output is printed to stdout (or maybe
stderr) by default, mixed with ert's other output. It may be possible
to change ert's batch runner to hide each test's `message' output,
perhaps printing it only if the test fails. Do we have a person who is
familiar with ert that we can run this idea by?
For example, this kind of noise would also be eliminated by such a
change:
passed 35/48 simple-tests--undo (0.000591 sec)
Undo
Redo
Mark set
Undo in region
Redo
Redo
Redo
Undo
Undo
Undo
Undo
Undo
Undo
passed 36/48 simple-tests--undo-equiv-table (0.000453 sec)
Mark set
Undo in region
Mark activated
Undo in region
Redo in region
Redo in region
>From 717328dac712f3a53ca950bb1e202b4e0936ceae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt Armstrong <matt@rfc20.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:33:00 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Reduce buffer-tests noisiness when run in batch mode.
* test/src/buffer-tests.el (overlay-modification-hooks): Remove noisy
`message' calls and use `ert-info' to log context of test
failures. (bug#59028)
(overlay-tests-start-recording-modification-hooks): ditto.
---
test/src/buffer-tests.el | 77 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/src/buffer-tests.el b/test/src/buffer-tests.el
index 3fc52eaf8b..2b6c974159 100644
--- a/test/src/buffer-tests.el
+++ b/test/src/buffer-tests.el
@@ -42,7 +42,6 @@ overlay-tests-start-recording-modification-hooks
overlay
hooks-property
(list (lambda (ov &rest args)
- (message " %S called on %S with args %S" hooks-property ov args)
(should inhibit-modification-hooks)
(should (eq ov overlay))
(push (list hooks-property args)
@@ -175,47 +174,41 @@ overlay-modification-hooks
(t 1 2 0))
(insert-behind-hooks
(t 1 2 0)))))))
- (message "BEGIN overlay-modification-hooks test-case %S" test-case)
-
- ;; All three hooks ignore the overlay's `front-advance' and
- ;; `rear-advance' option, so test both ways while expecting the same
- ;; result.
- (dolist (advance '(nil t))
- (message " advance is %S" advance)
- (let-alist test-case
- (with-temp-buffer
- ;; Set up the temporary buffer and overlay as specified by
- ;; the test case.
- (insert (or .buffer-text "1234"))
- (let ((overlay (make-overlay
- (or .overlay-beg 2)
- (or .overlay-end 4)
- nil
- advance advance)))
- (message " (buffer-string) is %S" (buffer-string))
- (message " overlay is %S" overlay)
- (overlay-tests-start-recording-modification-hooks overlay)
-
- ;; Modify the buffer, possibly inducing calls to the
- ;; overlay's modification hooks.
- (should (or .insert-at .replace))
- (when .insert-at
- (goto-char .insert-at)
- (insert "x")
- (message " inserted \"x\" at %S, buffer-string now %S"
- .insert-at (buffer-string)))
- (when .replace
- (goto-char (point-min))
- (search-forward .replace)
- (replace-match "x")
- (message " replaced %S with \"x\"" .replace))
-
- ;; Verify that the expected and actual modification hook
- ;; calls match.
- (should (equal
- .expected-calls
- (overlay-tests-get-recorded-modification-hooks
- overlay)))))))))
+ (ert-info ((format "test-case: %S" test-case))
+ ;; All three hooks ignore the overlay's `front-advance' and
+ ;; `rear-advance' option, so test both ways while expecting the same
+ ;; result.
+ (dolist (advance '(nil t))
+ (ert-info ((format "advance is %S" advance))
+ (let-alist test-case
+ (with-temp-buffer
+ ;; Set up the temporary buffer and overlay as specified by
+ ;; the test case.
+ (insert (or .buffer-text "1234"))
+ (let ((overlay (make-overlay
+ (or .overlay-beg 2)
+ (or .overlay-end 4)
+ nil
+ advance advance)))
+ (overlay-tests-start-recording-modification-hooks overlay)
+
+ ;; Modify the buffer, possibly inducing calls to the
+ ;; overlay's modification hooks.
+ (should (or .insert-at .replace))
+ (when .insert-at
+ (goto-char .insert-at)
+ (insert "x"))
+ (when .replace
+ (goto-char (point-min))
+ (search-forward .replace)
+ (replace-match "x"))
+
+ ;; Verify that the expected and actual modification hook
+ ;; calls match.
+ (should (equal
+ .expected-calls
+ (overlay-tests-get-recorded-modification-hooks
+ overlay)))))))))))
(ert-deftest overlay-modification-hooks-message-other-buf ()
"Test for bug#21824.
--
2.35.1