Re: [PATCH 2/5] t4211: demonstrate empty -L range crash
From: Eric Sunshine <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:58:14
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
SZEDER Gábor [off-list ref] writes:quoted
You could avoid the 'cat' here and patch in 4/5 by doing $(wc -l <b.c).Correct.
Thanks, I like that better. Unfortunately, what actually got queued on 'next', after applying this fix-up and re-ordering the patch series, is slightly bogus. The diff for f8395edc (range-set: satisfy non-empty ranges invariant) looks like this:
@@ -67,7 +67,8 @@ test_bad_opts "-L :foo:b.c" "no match" # There is a separate bug when an empty -L range is the first -L encountered, # thus to demonstrate this particular bug, the empty -L range must follow a # non-empty -L range. -test_expect_failure '-L {empty-range} (any -L)' ' +test_expect_success '-L {empty-range} (any -L)' ' + n=$(expr $(cat b.c | wc -l) + 1) && n=$(expr $(wc -l <b.c) + 1) && git log -L1,1:b.c -L$n:b.c '
which incorrectly adds back the $(cat b.c | wc -l) line just above the fixed $(wc -l <b.c) line.