Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] test: Add tests for 'config' command

diff --git a/55/b716c03653fbaee1f1604f8efd763afdabd78a b/55/b716c03653fbaee1f1604f8efd763afdabd78a
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..5614f59
--- /dev/null
+++ b/55/b716c03653fbaee1f1604f8efd763afdabd78a
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+Return-Path: <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6B4431FAF\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:47:11 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -2.29\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id LgG2oZBcA2t5 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:47:10 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu\r
+       [131.215.239.19])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B28431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:47:10 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from fire-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by fire-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141752E50B6E;\r
+       Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on fire-doxen by amavisd-new\r
+Received: from finestructure.net (unknown [76.89.193.65])\r
+       (Authenticated sender: jrollins)\r
+       by fire-doxen-submit (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CFF2E50D08;\r
+       Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:47:04 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+       id E2FE22F5; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:47:03 -0700 (PDT)\r
+From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+To: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>, Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com>,\r
+       notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] test: Add tests for 'config' command\r
+In-Reply-To: <877gy1p622.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+References: <1332282698-7951-1-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com>\r
+       <1333149350-22616-1-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com>\r
+       <1333149350-22616-3-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com>\r
+       <877gy1p622.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+93~g9442054 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:47:01 -0700\r
+Message-ID: <87wr60moiy.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
+       micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:47:11 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+\r
+On Sat, Mar 31 2012, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> It seems off to call is success without checking that the value has\r
+> actually been set. Of course it is checked in the notmuch config list\r
+> test introduced in the next commit but I think if it would be better to\r
+> check with notmuch config get here too (i.e. check that reading back the\r
+> value gives what you want). Otherwise a failure in `setting' will show up\r
+> as a test failure in `listing'.\r
+\r
+Hey, Peter.  I think Mark makes a good point here.  I think it would\r
+make more sense for the test to set the value, and then check that the\r
+value is properly set as expected.  It would make the tests multi-step,\r
+but that's fine.  There's plenty of precedent for that.\r
+\r
+jamie.\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
+\r
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)\r
+\r
+iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPd3tVAAoJEO00zqvie6q84E8P+gKOwSmKz8OyXLQPqr6BL6b8\r
+q9KTnad3cVfNSY8aY0fFAYI1RAEMFQSejrdxjir/JniJCZvnNOe1g9gxvCHijXmM\r
+sBTA2LQCUWndx7jJLDXMmvP2764JuuBtm3Qr30CEIyUTGUkmfmzuJsPSlPkzlf7e\r
+01QLEmOwcCqleh0fziCDwb9oD67d6kPUi5EB6E+3lvgxjQMXS9eogBDdb2nchsbM\r
+7JV8y+c/2dIhWxOnKYqcAVDqO3BJujQXvID3U4RlvydE2d+t8dfBfeZnkSiBL+IR\r
+/I179cgqg6sPKaNFpzYI+BIaegwki9mfYtjp5hKUsRYRsuyo8cmMIGhYpCagHf4J\r
+/FUilqIdIeO8D4/4MY/OuNiqQZ6dN2reFFEwJGuhmqyrWa4QgVcUjbIsjQI73oqX\r
+l59GKzEw+pjbOgxfpb+gGsGBkgWXQJ5TQVB3n276UNtN2yscmJlXTfBHNZwdWuCe\r
+OW5ZNsB6nl++cgy3VTOVKWbz/SwZXHdbll7Bwj2NqnNfasIW0AR8bqCwEhgZIpXO\r
+3fd6kyy634UUz9L+jm1geQ+YTi+2+2Kibm9AMPew6/rGEgxGAllXXZfPEqgYYVqf\r
+2w40dIzHJ/eK5ahAFFgOlmhhUuc5KMadJ5Jb6rAXx3bMkwJUKDKkYmeZCyaah5Ft\r
+Dl2fgLDKLe4vn50lUw0w\r
+=uW5e\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r