From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sebastian =?utf-8?Q?Reu=C3=9Fe?= <seb@wirrsal.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add tests for org-refile-get-targets
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 20:43:52 +0200
Message-ID: <87d1b7gw7r.fsf@wirrsal.net>
References: <20170515125455.18251-1-seb@wirrsal.net>
	<87efvqxeha.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36671)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <seb@wirrsal.net>) id 1dB3vZ-0000MQ-UA
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:44:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <seb@wirrsal.net>) id 1dB3vW-0006rH-R6
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:44:05 -0400
Received: from wirrsal.net ([188.68.36.149]:37660 helo=mail.wirrsal.net)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <seb@wirrsal.net>) id 1dB3vW-0006oR-H6
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:44:02 -0400
In-reply-to: <87efvqxeha.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode"
	<emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hello Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> Nitpick: Sections in test-org.el are sorted alphabetically. So the new
> "Refile" section could go between "Radio Targets" and "Sparse trees".

Thank you, I hadn=E2=80=99t noticed.

> Would it be possible to split this big test into smaller ones, with
> a description about what is really tested? See other tests in
> "test-org.el" for some examples. Big tests tend to not being very
> informative when they fail. IMO, code duplication is not an issue in
> test files when it makes tests more readable/useful.

Sure. Have a look at the follow-up patch and let me know what you think.
It didn=E2=80=99t feel right copy-pasting the tests wholesale, so I made =
a
helper-macro. I checked the ert output by forcing a failure and the
failure explanation looks as expected. Does this work for you?

> It would be even better if you can avoid relying on real files ("a.org"
> and "b.org" in your patch), but if it makes the test too convoluted, no
> worries.

In the follow-up, I stuck with this primarily because of the
=E2=80=98full-file-path=E2=80=99 test. I figure one could somehow mock a =
file-backed
buffer, but I expected that would be too involved just to have
everything inlined in the test. Let me know if you think differently
though.

Kind regards,

SR

--=20
Insane cobra split the wood
Trader of the lowland breed
Call a jittney, drive away
In the slipstream we will stay