GNU bug report logs - #62578
30.0.50; [PATCH] Add regression tests for synchronous processes in Eshell

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 62578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 62578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62578: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Add regression tests for synchronous
 processes in Eshell
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2023 00:16:38 -0700

On 3/31/2023 11:07 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 21:41:09 -0700
>> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
>>
>> +(ert-deftest esh-proc-test/synchronous-proc/simple/interactive ()
>> +  "Test that synchronous processes work in an interactive shell."
>> +  (skip-unless (executable-find "echo"))
> 
> This will always skip on MS-DOS, since "echo" is not available as an
> external program OOTB, only if GNU Coreutils are installed.  And even
> if Coreutils _are_ installed, a command that invokes "echo" will most
> probably invoke the shell builtin instead.

My main goal here is to test synchronous subprocesses on platforms 
*other than* MS-DOS, since these new tests aren't really necessary on 
MS-DOS itself: there are plenty of existing Eshell tests that create 
processes, and they'd *all* use synchronous subprocesses on MS-DOS.

As for calling a shell builtin, Eshell should translate "*echo" to 
"/path/to/echo" (or "C:/path/to/echo.exe") before calling it, so it 
shouldn't use a shell builtin here. You're right though that the tests 
probably require GNU Coreutils to be installed (this is also true of 
quite a few existing Eshell tests though).

>> +  (skip-unless (and (executable-find "echo")
>> +                    (executable-find "rev")))
> 
> Likewise here: "rev" is not expected to be available on MS-DOS.

To make this work in more places, I could switch "rev" to something 
that's actually in GNU Coreutils. Maybe "wc".

> I think you need to rethink these tests in a way that uses different
> commands.  My suggestion is to use the Emacs executable, since that is
> always available when running these tests.

Since these tests are meant to check the "synchronous subprocess" code 
in Eshell on non-MS-DOS platforms, I'd say it's ok. However, I can 
change my patch if you prefer. I could either:

1) Add a comment to the tests explaining that they're just meant to 
simulate some of MS-DOS's limitations on non-MS-DOS systems, or

2) Rework these tests so they work the same on both MS-DOS and other 
systems.

Personally, I lean softly towards (1), partly because the Eshell test 
suite probably breaks in quite a few other places on MS-DOS anyway. 
However, it shouldn't be too hard to do (2) instead.

What do you think?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.