Re: PATCH: test output to terminal dehackery

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>]

On May 30, 10:49am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} > That is, I'm wondering if the implementation of the test suite should
} > restrict itself to the most basic shell operations possible and only
} > the tests themselves employ extended functionality.
} 
} I don't really believe in the division between basic and extended
} functionality, except as regards add-ons; if the shell's broken it needs
} fixing.

OK, let me restate my position slightly.

The test suite should restrict itself only to the constructs that are
least likely to be affected by operating system and compiler portability
issues, so that it isn't necessary for a person building and testing on
a brand-new or otherwise unusual platform to fix an obscure or difficult
problem based on an unknown failure in a very complex piece of shell code
when there's a minimal example buried somewhere in the suite that might
immediately reveal the actual problem.

The test suite isn't just about you or me finding something we broke in
development.