Re: [PATCH 08/16] t5304: use helper to report failure of "test foo = bar"

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:17:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

That's a bit verbose. We could hide it behind something like test_eq,
too, but it introduces several extra new processes.

What do you mean by "extra new processes"?  Whether open coded in a
verbose way, or wrapped inside a helper, e.g.

	test_eql () {
		echo "$1" >expect &&
                shift &&
                "$@" >actual &&
                test_cmp expect actual
	}
        ...
	test_eql whatever do_something

the number of processes would be the same, no?

Or do you mean test_cmp is an extra process compared with

	test_eq whatever "$(do_something)"

Sorry, yeah, I meant new processes versus "test $foo = $bar".

Hopefully, do_something does something more than what takes test_cmp
to run, so I wouldn't be worried too much about it.

Yeah, I may just be overly paranoid here. If we are not worried about a
few extra processes, then the test_eql you showed above may be
preferable, because its output is uniform with other test_cmp tests
(although maybe it also introduces problems, because it does not handle
stray whitespace in the same way, and it puts extra files in the working
tree).

-Peff