Fix day-one sloppiness: when I first wrote this framework
it compared strings using 'expr', not '=', to be more
forgiving of extra cruft in output. This was a bad decision.
It means that warnings or additional text are ignored:
is "all is ok, NOT!" "all is ok" <-- this would pass
Solution: tighten up the 'is' check. Use '=' (direct
compare) first. If it fails, look for wild cards ('*')
or character classes ('[') in the expect string. If
so, and only then, use 'expr'. And, thanks to a clever
suggestion from Luap99, include '(using expr)' in the
error message when we do so; this could make it easier
for a developer to understand a string mismatch.
This change exposes a lot of instances in which we weren't
doing proper comparisons. Fix those. Thankfully, there
weren't as many as I'd feared.
Also, and completely unrelated, add '-T' flag to bats
helper, for showing timing results. (I will open this
as a separate PR if requested. I too find it offensive
to jumble together unrelated commits.)
Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <santiago@redhat.com>
Well, new to you. It's been something I've used for years.
Simple, but it takes care of a lot of housekeeping, and
makes it ever-so-much-more pleasant to invoke bats tests.
And when it's easier to run tests, tests get run.
Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <santiago@redhat.com>
