bug#46351: 28.0.50; Add convenient way to bypass Eshell's own pipelining

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Mon 17 Jan 2022 at 10:19PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:

> I've got it working.  Please let me know what you think of the attached.

Attached is a revised series addressing feedback gratefully received
over the past week.

On Thu 20 Jan 2022 at 07:41PM +01, Michael Albinus wrote:

> However, if I understand your test cases, they check that the eshell
> commands are manipulated as you expect. The tests do not run the
> resulting command itself, checking the output. This is a little bit
> unfortune, because you could check that the output is indeed what you
> expect. And perhaps you could find some constellations, where the output
> is different when using either *| or |. This would be another proof that
> your changes work.
>
> And this would also give some guidance, where your approach has
> limitations (if exist). Showing also *failing* tests in one way or
> another is always a benefit. Your tests use only should, there is no
> should-not or should-error.

I've added actually running the commands and examining the results to
several of the tests.  I found a way to show different output in the
case of *| vs. | by using cl-letf to redefine some Lisp functions.

I also refactored the tests in the hope of increasing their value as a
supplement to the documentation.  Please let me know if you have any
other ideas.  Thanks!

-- 
Sean Whitton

v4-0001-Move-Eshell-test-helpers-to-their-own-file.patch
Description: Text Data

v4-0002-Rework-eshell-match-result-for-testing-asynchrono.patch
Description: Text Data

v4-0003-Add-Eshell-syntax-to-more-easily-bypass-Eshell-s-.patch
Description: Text Data