Currently, test_cmd_line_script only checks sys.argv[0] is set correctly.

It should pass some extra values after the script name, then include an appropriate check in the output of the launched script.

I would like to work on this but I am not sure how to go about it. It seems that the method signature for _check_script has to be changed in include another parameter for expected_argv1, expected_argv2, etc. The _check_output also has to be changed to include assertIn(printed_argv1, data) for the additional parameters. This also means that test_source has to include some lines to print the sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2], etc. 

Am I on the right track? Or is there a easier way?

(By the way, when I set verbose to a value > 1, errors are found. I realized that a print() statement was printing an undefined variable. I have filed an issue and attached a patch to it. The link for the issue is http://bugs.python.org/issue14032)

> It seems that the method signature for _check_script has to be changed
> in include another parameter for expected_argv1, expected_argv2,
It would seem simpler to me to make that expected_argv :)

For the purposes of this test (i.e. running the same script several different ways and making sure it always behaves as expected), I wouldn't even worry about making it configurable.

Just define a list of example args as a module global, append them to the run_args in _check_script, and check them against sys.argv[1:] with assertEqual() in the test script.

>Just define a list of example args as a module global, append them to 
>the run_args in _check_script, and check them against sys.argv[1:] with 
>assertEqual() in the test script.

Okay I have done that but the assertion passes in all the tests except in test_issue8202 and test_issue8202_dash_m_file_ignored. It seems that the script didn't receive any arguments from the cmd line from the way it is executed in these functions. 

I have attached a patch to let you see what I am doing. Let me know if I am wrong. Thanks.

I don’t understand why you import the module inside the same module.

The second instance is inside the source code string that's written out as the script to be run in the subprocess. Not a bad idea actually:
- it avoids writing the example args twice (which is what I was thinking of doing)
- it avoids turning the test_script into a string formatting template (which is something I've been trying to avoid for that test)
- it provides an additional sanity check on how sys.path is being initialised in the subprocess

For the two failures, I suggest modifying _check_script() to return the "rc, out, err" from the underlying assert_python_ok() call, then updating the two offending tests to call _check_script() appropriately instead of calling assert_python_ok() directly.

>For the two failures, I suggest modifying _check_script() to return the 
>"rc, out, err" from the underlying assert_python_ok() call

I've decided to simple pass in *example_args into the assert_python_ok() in those two offending tests. There are less changes this way. Please let me know if I am doing this correctly. Thanks. ;)

*friendly ping*, how's the review for this patch?

I saw nothing wrong.  Give Nick a week to find time to review :)

New changeset 22f0044ea366 by Nick Coghlan in branch '3.2':
Close issue #14026 by better testing sys.argv handling in test_cmd_line_script (patch by Jason Yeo)
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/22f0044ea366

New changeset ff6593aa8376 by Nick Coghlan in branch 'default':
Resolve #14026 (Merge from 3.2)
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ff6593aa8376