From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30009 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2007 21:10:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 29988 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Feb 2007 21:10:11 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:10:04 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l12LA1PD029657 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:10:01 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l12LA0CP006469; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:10:00 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l12L9xPo005598; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:09:59 -0500 Message-ID: <45C3A8AA.2040505@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:10:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Muldoon CC: frysk Subject: Re: frysk.expunit, Expect like functionality within JUnit References: <45C0E033.2060808@redhat.com> <45C3A489.9060805@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <45C3A489.9060805@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q1/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 Phil Muldoon wrote: > > > So for the purposes of the above test, the new Java Expect should > simplfy things nicely. Given the above, would the correct java code be > something like: > > {start up an example java process, using DetachedAckProcess or > AckDaemonProcess} > > e = new Expect (new String[] { "fcore", > "-console","frysk=BADLOG",myPid}); > e.assertExpect ("fcore: Invalid log console: BADLOG"); > Yes, that is it. And yes, right now there isn't a path to find fcore. I'll see about adding it. I'm also thinking of contracting assertExpect() to just expect() Andrew > I'm not sure how you would find the fcore in the above (in-tree and > out-of-tree testing), but if the test converts to as simply as above, > that is great! > > Regards > > Phil >