Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> How does this look like:
>
> Thanks, some comments below:
>
>> From e865604c6a9d06cb986752e28b9ae88d7bc8011e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 15:09:19 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] package-tests.el: Add test Bug#65475
>>
>> * test/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-tests.el (with-package-test): Bind
>> package-selected-packages.
>> (package-test-bug65475): Add test.
>> ---
>>  test/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-tests.el | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-tests.el b/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-tests.el
>> index 113b4ec12a8..b55254bc036 100644
>> --- a/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-tests.el
>> +++ b/test/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-tests.el
>> @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ with-package-test
>>              abbreviated-home-dir
>>              package--initialized
>>              package-alist
>> +            package-selected-packages
>>              ,@(if update-news
>>                    '(package-update-news-on-upload t)
>>                  (list (cl-gensym)))
>> @@ -307,6 +308,23 @@ package-test-bug58367
>>        (package-delete (cadr (assq 'v7-withsub package-alist))))
>>      ))
>>
>> +(ert-deftest package-test-bug65475 ()
>> +  "Ensure deleting a package clears `package-selected-packages'."
>       ^^^^^^ (1)      ^^^^^^^^^ (2)
>
> 1. Is this word redundant?
> 2. Maybe: "the last package"?

Makes sense.

>> +  (with-package-test (:basedir (ert-resource-directory))
>> +    (package-initialize)
>> +    (let* ((pkg-el "simple-single-1.3.el")
>> +           (source-file (expand-file-name pkg-el (ert-resource-directory))))
>> +      (should-not package-alist)
>> +      (should-not package-selected-packages)
>> +      (package-install-file source-file)
>> +      (should package-alist)
>> +      (should package-selected-packages)
>> +      (let ((desc (cadr (assq 'simple-single package-alist))))
>> +        (should desc)
>> +        (package-delete desc))
>
> I'm not sure that the `should's and `should-not's above help, because
> they make the intention of this test case less clear.  For example, the
> test fails if installing the package fails, but don't we already have a
> separate test for that?  Do we really need this test to fail in that
> case also?
>
> If we want to check that, as a precondition, `package-alist' and
> `package-selected-packages' are empty, perhaps that should be some
> `cl-assert's in the `with-package-test' macro?  OTOH, we already know
> it's nil because of the let in the macro, so wouldn't that just be
> verifying that let-binding a variable works correctly?
>
> It seems like the relevant `should's for this particular test are the
> two below:

No, I think it should be OK to drop the first two, I just wasn't
familiar with the `with-package-test' at first when writing the test.
Here is the updated patch: