X-Git-Url: http://repo.macrolet.net/gitweb/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=tests%2Frun-program.impure.lisp;h=29fbd7245e82ddc848591f8c7a10890c816c2dcb;hb=bd93f052f95371f613fb913c1cac2b01c8ff2a5c;hp=b30ade5811f323cef793dd8e3d79486835a776ae;hpb=51a1a3d4e4f174066958f40983c14abfb7116216;p=sbcl.git

diff --git a/tests/run-program.impure.lisp b/tests/run-program.impure.lisp
index b30ade5..29fbd72 100644
--- a/tests/run-program.impure.lisp
+++ b/tests/run-program.impure.lisp
@@ -13,19 +13,162 @@
 
 (cl:in-package :cl-user)
 
-;; Actually there's no real side-effect here. The impurity we're
-;; avoiding is the sigchld handler that RUN-PROGRAM sets up, which
-;; interfers with the manual unix process control done by the test
-;; framework (sometimes the handler will manage to WAIT3 a process
-;; before run-tests WAITPIDs it).
-
-(let* ((process (sb-ext:run-program "/bin/cat" '() :wait nil
-                                    :output :stream :input :stream))
-       (out (process-input process))
-       (in (process-output process)))
+;; In addition to definitions lower down the impurity we're avoiding
+;; is the sigchld handler that RUN-PROGRAM sets up, which interfers
+;; with the manual unix process control done by the test framework
+;; (sometimes the handler will manage to WAIT3 a process before
+;; run-tests WAITPIDs it).
+
+(with-test (:name :run-program-cat-1)
+  (let* ((process (sb-ext:run-program "/bin/cat" '() :wait nil
+                                      :output :stream :input :stream))
+         (out (process-input process))
+         (in (process-output process)))
+    (unwind-protect
+         (loop for i from 0 to 255 do
+              (write-byte i out)
+              (force-output out)
+              (assert (= (read-byte in) i)))
+      (process-close process))))
+
+;;; Test driving an external program (cat) through pipes wrapped in
+;;; composite streams.
+
+(require :sb-posix)
+
+(defun make-pipe ()
+  (multiple-value-bind (in out) (sb-posix:pipe)
+    (let ((input (sb-sys:make-fd-stream in
+                                        :input t
+                                        :external-format :ascii
+                                        :buffering :none :name "in"))
+          (output (sb-sys:make-fd-stream out
+                                         :output t
+                                         :external-format :ascii
+                                         :buffering :none :name "out")))
+      (make-two-way-stream input output))))
+
+(defparameter *cat-in-pipe* (make-pipe))
+(defparameter *cat-in* (make-synonym-stream '*cat-in-pipe*))
+(defparameter *cat-out-pipe* (make-pipe))
+(defparameter *cat-out* (make-synonym-stream '*cat-out-pipe*))
+
+(with-test (:name :run-program-cat-2)
+  (let ((cat (run-program "/bin/cat" nil :input *cat-in* :output *cat-out*
+                          :wait nil)))
+    (dolist (test '("This is a test!"
+                    "This is another test!"
+                    "This is the last test...."))
+      (write-line test *cat-in*)
+      (assert (equal test (read-line *cat-out*))))
+    (process-close cat)))
+
+;;; The above test used to use ed, but there were buffering issues: on some platforms
+;;; buffering of stdin and stdout depends on their TTYness, and ed isn't sufficiently
+;;; agressive about flushing them. So, here's another test using :PTY.
+
+(defparameter *tmpfile* "run-program-ed-test.tmp")
+
+(with-open-file (f *tmpfile*
+                   :direction :output
+                   :if-exists :supersede)
+  (write-line "bar" f))
+
+(defparameter *ed*
+  (run-program "/bin/ed" (list *tmpfile*) :wait nil :pty t))
+
+(defparameter *ed-pipe* (make-two-way-stream (process-pty *ed*) (process-pty *ed*)))
+(defparameter *ed-in* (make-synonym-stream '*ed-pipe*))
+(defparameter *ed-out* (make-synonym-stream '*ed-pipe*))
+
+(defun read-linish (stream)
+  (with-output-to-string (s)
+    (loop for c = (read-char stream)
+       while (and c (not (eq #\newline c)) (not (eq #\return c)))
+       do (write-char c s))))
+
+(defun assert-ed (command response)
+  (when command
+    (write-line command *ed-in*)
+    (force-output *ed-in*))
+  (let ((got (read-linish *ed-out*)))
+    (unless (equal response got)
+      (error "wanted ~S from ed, got ~S" response got)))
+  *ed*)
+
+(unwind-protect
+     (with-test (:name :run-program-ed)
+       (assert-ed nil "4")
+       (assert-ed ".s/bar/baz/g" "")
+       (assert-ed "w" "4")
+       (assert-ed "q" "")
+       (process-wait *ed*)
+       (with-open-file (f *tmpfile*)
+         (assert (equal "baz" (read-line f)))))
+  (delete-file *tmpfile*))
+
+;; Around 1.0.12 there was a regression when :INPUT or :OUTPUT was a
+;; pathname designator.  Since these use the same code, it should
+;; suffice to test just :INPUT.
+(let ((file))
   (unwind-protect
-       (loop for i from 0 to 255 do
-             (write-byte i out)
-             (force-output out)
-             (assert (= (read-byte in) i)))
-    (process-close process)))
+       (progn (with-open-file (f "run-program-test.tmp" :direction :output)
+                (setf file (truename f))
+                (write-line "Foo" f))
+                  (assert (run-program "cat" ()
+                                       :input file :output t
+                                       :search t :wait t)))
+    (when file
+      (delete-file file))))
+
+;;; This used to crash on Darwin and trigger recursive lock errors on
+;;; every platform.
+(with-test (:name (:run-program :stress))
+  ;; Do it a hundred times in batches of 10 so that with a low limit
+  ;; of the number of processes the test can have a chance to pass.
+  (loop
+   repeat 10 do
+   (map nil
+        #'sb-ext:process-wait
+        (loop repeat 10
+              collect
+              (sb-ext:run-program "/bin/echo" '
+                                  ("It would be nice if this didn't crash.")
+                                  :wait nil :output nil)))))
+
+(with-test (:name (:run-program :pty-stream))
+  (assert (equal "OK"
+                 (subseq
+                  (with-output-to-string (s)
+                    (assert (= 42 (process-exit-code
+                                   (run-program "/bin/sh" '("-c" "echo OK; exit 42") :wait t
+                                                :pty s))))
+                    s)
+                  0
+                  2))))
+
+;; Check whether RUN-PROGRAM puts its child process into the foreground
+;; when stdin is inherited. If it fails to do so we will receive a SIGTTIN.
+;;
+;; We can't check for the signal itself since run-program.c resets the
+;; forked process' signal mask to defaults. But the default is `stop'
+;; of which we can be notified asynchronously by providing a status hook.
+(with-test (:name (:run-program :inherit-stdin)
+            :fails-on :sbcl)
+  (error "Hangs at least on threaded Darwin and threaded x86-64/Linux.")
+  (let (stopped)
+    (flet ((status-hook (proc)
+             (case (sb-ext:process-status proc)
+               (:stopped (setf stopped t)))))
+      (let ((proc (sb-ext:run-program "/bin/ed" nil :search nil :wait nil
+                                      :input t :output t
+                                      :status-hook #'status-hook)))
+        ;; Give the program a generous time to generate the SIGTTIN.
+        ;; If it hasn't done so after that time we can consider it
+        ;; to be working (i.e. waiting for input without generating SIGTTIN).
+        (sleep 0.5)
+        ;; either way we have to signal it to terminate
+        (process-kill proc sb-posix:sigterm)
+        (process-close proc)
+        (assert (not stopped))))))
+