[U-Boot] [PATCH 6/6] hush: add some tests for quoting

[Rabin Vincent <rabin@rab.in>]

On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 09:12:37AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> On 29 October 2014 16:21, Rabin Vincent <rabin@rab.in> wrote:
> > +       assert(run_command("setenv ut_var '\"'; setenv ut_var2 \"${ut_var}\"", 0) == 0);
> > +       assert(!strcmp(getenv("ut_var2"), "\""));
> > +
> > +       assert(run_command("setenv ut_catcat setenv ut_catout\\;setenv ut_catX setenv ut_catout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\$\\$ut_catin\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\; run ut_catX", 0) == 0);
> > +       assert(run_command("setenv ut_pointer '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20'", 0) == 0);
> 
> Can we reduce this down to 3-4 numbers for easier maintenance? Or do
> the 20 numbers buy us something?

After 14 arguments, the quotes around them become necessary, so having
more than 14 ensures we test that the quotes are still there:

 => setenv x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
 => setenv x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
 => setenv x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 setenv - set environment variables
 
 Usage:
 setenv [-f] name value ...
     - [forcibly] set environment variable 'name' to 'value ...'
     setenv [-f] name
         - [forcibly] delete environment variable 'name'
 => setenv x '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15'
 => 

> Also did you test this with the simple cli parser too?

No, I didn't realize that these tests they would get run without hush.
I tried them out and they fail with the simple parser, as do the tests
with the empty strings in the third patch.  What do you suggest?  Drop
these new tests, or move them inside the ifdef HUSH?