[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AT_CHECK within for loop
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: AT_CHECK within for loop |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:37:26 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04) |
* Joel E. Denny wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 08:31:05PM CET:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Joel E. Denny wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 08:06:38PM CET:
> > > A way to get the best of both worlds might be to permit shell functions
> > > containing AT_CHECK to be defined outside of AT_SETUP. I believe that is
> > > not possible with autotest now, and I have no idea if it's feasible to
> > > implement.
> >
> > That is possible right now, either in atlocal.in or in PREPARE_TESTS
> > diversions:
> That's interesting, and I wasn't aware of it. However, when I tried
> expanding AT_CHECK inside that function, autotest gave the usual
> complaint:
>
> tmp.at:4: error: AT_CHECK: missing AT_SETUP detected
Ah, I think it doesn't work to expand AT_CHECK inside a function.
Sorry for overlooking that requirement of yours.
It might be possible to rework _AT_CHECK so that it will work in
such a setup, should mostly be a matter of assigning some values
that are currently held in m4 macros only to shell variables in
AT_SETUP, and then referencing them in _AT_CHECK. This would
probably enlarge testsuite code a bit, but maybe negligible.
Cheers,
Ralf
- AT_CHECK within for loop, Daily, Jeff A, 2011/01/28
- Re: AT_CHECK within for loop, Eric Blake, 2011/01/28
- Re: AT_CHECK within for loop, Joel E. Denny, 2011/01/28
- Re: AT_CHECK within for loop, Eric Blake, 2011/01/28
- Re: AT_CHECK within for loop, Joel E. Denny, 2011/01/28
- Re: AT_CHECK within for loop, Ralf Wildenhues, 2011/01/28
- Re: AT_CHECK within for loop, Joel E. Denny, 2011/01/28
- Re: AT_CHECK within for loop,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: AT_CHECK within for loop, Ralf Wildenhues, 2011/01/29