{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/openshift/origin/issues/6028","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/openshift/origin/issues/6028/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/openshift/origin/issues/6028/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/openshift/origin/issues/6028/events","html_url":"https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/6028","id":118490788,"number":6028,"title":"test-integration doesn't use os::cmd::expect_success, but could","user":{"login":"stevekuznetsov","id":7328370,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7328370?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov","html_url":"https://github.com/stevekuznetsov","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stevekuznetsov/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2015-11-23T22:47:09Z","updated_at":"2015-11-23T22:47:09Z","closed_at":null,"body":"@liggitt What do you think? The helper method in `test-integration` is actually what `os::cmd::expect_success` is based on. I think this would be a positive change because it would DRY out the code, as well as allowing for a single point of interaction with a jUnit-producing script that would allow the jUnit parser to use the same rules for `test-cmd` and `test-integration`. The only differences would be:\r\n1. `test-integration` can skip tests\r\n2. I may change `os::cmd::expect_success` to use the call-stack to identify the line calling the function instead of passing in a name, and `test-integration` is better off using the name convention. I implemented a pseudo-strategy pattern with \"function pointers\" in the internals of `os::cmd::expect*` for exit code comparisons, and could do so again for test identifier functions, but @deads2k rightfully pointed out that things are on fairly shaky ground in bash, passing strings around that just happen to refer to functions isn't the best. I can keep it all contained within `os::cmd::internal` namespace as before, but maybe that's too much of a hassle for DRYing out `test-integration`? "}}