GNU bug report logs -
#51037
[PATCH] Make `print-level` & `print-length` customizable in ERT batch tests
Previous Next
Reported by: Michael <sp1ff <at> runbox.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:51:02 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Fixed in version 29.1
Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #34 received at 51037 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:
> Michael <sp1ff <at> runbox.com> writes:
>
>> When running ERT tests in batch mode, the conservative values
>> chosen for `print-level` and `print-length` sometimes make it
>> difficult to see what exactly is wrong. This patch introduces
>> two new variables (`ert-batch-print-level` &
>> `ert-batch-print-length`) that one can use to customize them;
>> e.g.
>>
>> emacs -batch -l ert -l my-tests.el \
>> --eval "(let ((ert-batch-print-level 10) \
>> (ert-batch-print-length 120)) \
>> (ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit))"
>
> Sounds like a good idea.
>
>> +MESSAGE-FN should normally be nil; it is used for automated
>> +self-tests and specify how to display messages."
>
> I don't understand this bit, though. If you want to test how
> this
> function outputs messages, you can just `cl-letf' like this:
>
> (cl-letf (((symbol-function 'message) ...
Good point. I simply carried the strategy over from that used to
unit test `ert-run-tests-interactively`. TBH I was unaware of
`cl-letf`, and there *is* this comment above
`ert-run-tests-interactively`:
;; Should OUTPUT-BUFFER-NAME and MESSAGE-FN really be
arguments here?
;; They are needed only for our automated self-tests at the
moment.
;; Or should there be some other mechanism?
Perhaps I should change *both* to just use `cl-letf`?
--
Michael <sp1ff <at> runbox.com>
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 171 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.