tool: capture stdout / stderr #1998
Conversation
Currently, the tools write directly to `os.{Stdout,Stderr}`, which
complicates testing in the case where the command is run from same
process running the tests (i.e. from a `testing.T` func).
Adapt the tools to make use of the return values from
`(*cobra.Command).{OutOrStdout,OutOrStderr}`. In testing scenarios, the
tools can use `SetOut` and `SetErr` to pass in a writer that can
intercept anything written to stdout / stderr. In productions scenarios,
the tools will emit to the appropriate channel.
Touches cockroachdb/cockroach#89095.
|
This change is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @jbowens and @nicktrav)
a discussion (no related file):
LGTM but will defer approval to someone a bit more familiar with this code. I was wondering if there is a way to write a test to ensure that future tools / cobra commands that we write will use the (*cobra.Command).{OutOrStdout,OutOrStderr} for output.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @nicktrav)
Good suggestion. Might be a little tricky. It's only really required for testing, and not correctness. TFTRs! |
Currently, the tools write directly to
os.{Stdout,Stderr}, which complicates testing in the case where the command is run from same process running the tests (i.e. from atesting.Tfunc).Adapt the tools to make use of the return values from
(*cobra.Command).{OutOrStdout,OutOrStderr}. In testing scenarios, the tools can useSetOutandSetErrto pass in a writer that can intercept anything written to stdout / stderr. In productions scenarios, the tools will emit to the appropriate channel.Touches cockroachdb/cockroach#89095.