Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] difftool --dir-diff: symlink all files matching the working tree

John Keeping [off-list ref] writes:

When you later want to enhance the test to check a combination of
difftool arguments where some paths are expected to become links and
others are expected to become real files, wouldn't this helper
become a bit awkward to use?  The element that expects a real file
could be an empty line to what corresponds to the output from
readlink, but still...

If t/ directory (or when the test is run with --root=<there>) is
aliased with symlinks in such a way that "cd <there> && $(pwd)" does
not match <there>, would this check with $(pwd) still work, I have
to wonder?

+test_expect_success PERL,SYMLINKS 'difftool --dir-diff --symlink without unstaged changes' '
+	cat <<EOF >expect &&
+file
+$(pwd)/file
+file2
+$(pwd)/file2
+sub/sub
+$(pwd)/sub/sub
+EOF

You can do this to align them nicer (note the "-" before EOF):

	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
	file
        $(pwd)/file
        ...
        EOF

+	git difftool --dir-diff --symlink \
+		--extcmd "./.git/CHECK_SYMLINKS" branch HEAD &&
+	test_cmp actual expect
+'
+

Thanks.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:28:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

John Keeping [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

diff --git a/t/t7800-difftool.sh b/t/t7800-difftool.sh
index 3aab6e1..70e09b6 100755
--- a/t/t7800-difftool.sh
+++ b/t/t7800-difftool.sh

@@ -340,6 +340,28 @@ test_expect_success PERL 'difftool --dir-diff' '
 	stdin_contains file <output
 '
 
+write_script .git/CHECK_SYMLINKS <<\EOF
+for f in file file2 sub/sub
+do
+	echo "$f"
+	readlink "$2/$f"
+done >actual
+EOF

When you later want to enhance the test to check a combination of
difftool arguments where some paths are expected to become links and
others are expected to become real files, wouldn't this helper
become a bit awkward to use?  The element that expects a real file
could be an empty line to what corresponds to the output from
readlink, but still...

If t/ directory (or when the test is run with --root=<there>) is
aliased with symlinks in such a way that "cd <there> && $(pwd)" does
not match <there>, would this check with $(pwd) still work, I have
to wonder?

It looks like t3903 uses "ls -l" for this sort of test, perhaps
something like this covers these cases better:

    write_script .git/CHECK_SYMLINKS <<\EOF
    for f in file file2 sub/sub
    do
        ls -l "$2/$f" >"$f".actual
    done
    EOF

    ...

    workdir=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
    grep "-> $workdir/file" file.actual
    grep "-> $workdir/file2" file2.actual
    grep "-> $workdir/sub/sub" sub/sub.actual

It looks like we already rely on that output format in t3903 so I think
that is safe, but it would be nice to have a better way to say "does
this link point to that file?".  I can't think of a way to do that that
doesn't seem far too complicated for what's required here.

quoted

+test_expect_success PERL,SYMLINKS 'difftool --dir-diff --symlink without unstaged changes' '
+	cat <<EOF >expect &&
+file
+$(pwd)/file
+file2
+$(pwd)/file2
+sub/sub
+$(pwd)/sub/sub
+EOF

You can do this to align them nicer (note the "-" before EOF):

	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
	file
        $(pwd)/file
        ...
        EOF

quoted

+	git difftool --dir-diff --symlink \
+		--extcmd "./.git/CHECK_SYMLINKS" branch HEAD &&
+	test_cmp actual expect
+'
+

Thanks.