Re: [PATCH v1 6/6] Unit tests for V2 porcelain status

Hi,

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote:

On 20 July 2016 at 17:47, Jeff Hostetler [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 07/20/2016 11:30 AM, Jakub Narębski wrote:

quoted

W dniu 2016-07-20 o 00:10, Jeff Hostetler pisze:

quoted

+test_expect_success pre_initial_commit_0 '
+       printf "## branch: (initial) master\n" >expected &&
+       printf "?? actual\n" >>expected &&
+       printf "?? dir1/\n" >>expected &&
+       printf "?? expected\n" >>expected &&
+       printf "?? file_x\n" >>expected &&
+       printf "?? file_y\n" >>expected &&
+       printf "?? file_z\n" >>expected &&

Why not use heredoc syntax (cat <<\EOF), or prepare a file
with expected output in the testsuite?

The tests involving renames needed to embed a tab character
in the output and hiding a tab character in a heredoc seemed
error prone.  So to be consistent I made them all printf-style.

Ah, so that's the case for series of printf. I think in some other
cases the Git testsuite simply uses HT variable for the TAB
character.

Yeah, it would be more pleasant to read

	echo >expected <<-EOF
	## branch: (initial) master
	?? actual
	?? dir1/
	?? expected
	?? file_x
	?? file_y
	?? file_z
	EOF

And it is also easy to use $HT in there (unless you want to use <<-\EOF).

Actually, even if you want to use \EOF, you can easily use `sed` to
expand, say, "Q" to tabs, such as was done here:

	https://github.com/git/git/blob/v2.9.2/t/t4213-log-tabexpand.sh#L88-L92

Ciao,
Dscho