Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

test: consider using existing shell test suites #264

Open
39555 opened this issue Nov 8, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

test: consider using existing shell test suites #264

39555 opened this issue Nov 8, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
testing Related to testing infrastructure or tests

Comments

@39555
Copy link
Contributor

39555 commented Nov 8, 2024

I read about oils and its extensive https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/wiki/Spec-Tests. It is similar to brush yaml files and contains a lot of scripts from real-world codebases. Maybe we could use it directly or auto-format it into YAML files.

The stats for different shells can be found here https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.7.pre11/test/spec.wwz/for-expr.html

@reubeno reubeno added the testing Related to testing infrastructure or tests label Nov 9, 2024
@reubeno
Copy link
Owner

reubeno commented Dec 10, 2024

FYI, the recently merged PR ( #288 ) enables us to start using the basic input backend to run the upstream bash-completion test suite. That test suite, while focused on programmable completion, ends up being a good battery of compatibility tests due to how much complex bash-isms are used by bash-completion.

Would love to find the right way to run that suite regularly, and follow that pattern to bring online execution of other existing test suites (like the ones you mention).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
testing Related to testing infrastructure or tests
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants