Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] test: add smoke tests for the date/time parser module

[Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>]

Quoth Jani Nikula on Oct 22 at 12:22 am:
> Test the date/time parser module directly, independent of notmuch,
> using the parse-time test tool.
> 
> Credits to Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> for writing most of the
> tests.
> ---
>  test/notmuch-test      |    1 +
>  test/parse-time-string |   71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 72 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100755 test/parse-time-string
> 
> diff --git a/test/notmuch-test b/test/notmuch-test
> index cc732c3..7eadfdf 100755
> --- a/test/notmuch-test
> +++ b/test/notmuch-test
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ TESTS="
>    emacs-hello
>    emacs-show
>    missing-headers
> +  parse-time-string
>  "
>  TESTS=${NOTMUCH_TESTS:=$TESTS}
>  
> diff --git a/test/parse-time-string b/test/parse-time-string
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000..862e701
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/test/parse-time-string
> @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
> +#!/usr/bin/env bash
> +test_description="date/time parser module"
> +. ./test-lib.sh
> +
> +# Sanity/smoke tests for the date/time parser independent of notmuch
> +
> +_date ()
> +{
> +    date -d "$*" +%s
> +}
> +
> +_parse_time ()
> +{
> +    ${TEST_DIRECTORY}/parse-time --format=%s "$*"
> +}
> +
> +test_begin_subtest "date(1) default format without TZ code"
> +test_expect_equal "$(_parse_time Fri Aug 3 23:06:06 2012)" "$(_date Fri Aug 3 23:06:06 2012)"
> +
> +test_begin_subtest "date(1) --rfc-2822 format"
> +test_expect_equal "$(_parse_time Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:07:46 +0100)" "$(_date Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:07:46 +0100)"
> +
> +test_begin_subtest "date(1) --rfc=3339=seconds format"
> +test_expect_equal "$(_parse_time 2012-08-03 23:09:37+03:00)" "$(_date 2012-08-03 23:09:37+03:00)"
> +
> +test_begin_subtest "Date parser tests"
> +REFERENCE=$(_date Tue Jan 11 11:11:00 +0000 2011)
> +cat <<EOF > INPUT
> +now          ==> Tue Jan 11 11:11:00 +0000 2011
> +2010-1-1     ==> ERROR: 5

It would be nice if these errors were strings.  I have no idea if "5"
is the right error for this.

> +Jan 2        ==> Sun Jan 02 11:11:00 +0000 2011
> +Mon          ==> Mon Jan 10 11:11:00 +0000 2011
> +last Friday  ==> ERROR: 4
> +2 hours ago  ==> ERROR: 1
> +last month   ==> Sat Dec 11 11:11:00 +0000 2010
> +month ago    ==> ERROR: 1
> +8am          ==> Tue Jan 11 08:00:00 +0000 2011
> +9:15         ==> Tue Jan 11 09:15:00 +0000 2011
> +12:34        ==> Tue Jan 11 12:34:00 +0000 2011
> +monday       ==> Mon Jan 10 11:11:00 +0000 2011
> +yesterday    ==> Mon Jan 10 11:11:00 +0000 2011
> +tomorrow     ==> ERROR: 1
> +             ==> Tue Jan 11 11:11:00 +0000 2011 # empty string is reference time
> +
> +Aug 3 23:06:06 2012             ==> Fri Aug 03 23:06:06 +0000 2012 # date(1) default format without TZ code
> +Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:07:46 +0100 ==> Fri Aug 03 22:07:46 +0000 2012 # rfc-2822
> +2012-08-03 23:09:37+03:00       ==> Fri Aug 03 20:09:37 +0000 2012 # rfc-3339 seconds
> +
> +10s           ==> Tue Jan 11 11:10:50 +0000 2011
> +19701223s     ==> Fri May 28 10:37:17 +0000 2010
> +19701223      ==> Wed Dec 23 11:11:00 +0000 1970
> +
> +19701223 +0100 ==> Wed Dec 23 11:11:00 +0000 1970 # Timezone is ignored without an error
> +
> +today ==^> Tue Jan 11 23:59:59 +0000 2011
> +today ==_> Tue Jan 11 00:00:00 +0000 2011
> +
> +thisweek ==^> Sat Jan 15 23:59:59 +0000 2011
> +thisweek ==_> Sun Jan 09 00:00:00 +0000 2011
> +
> +two months ago==> ERROR: 1 # "ago" is not supported
> +two months ==> Thu Nov 11 11:11:00 +0000 2010
> +
> +@1348569850 ==> Tue Sep 25 10:44:10 +0000 2012
> +@10 ==> Thu Jan 01 00:00:10 +0000 1970

Very nice.  The only thing that jumps out at me is that there are no
==^^> tests, though it would be interesting to run a code coverage
tool to see how thorough these tests are.

> +EOF
> +
> +${TEST_DIRECTORY}/parse-time --ref=${REFERENCE} < INPUT > OUTPUT
> +test_expect_equal_file INPUT OUTPUT
> +
> +test_done