Re: [PATCH v1] t6300: fix issues related to %(contents:size)
From: Jeff King <hidden>
Date: 2020-07-31 20:30:07
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 01:04:10PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Definitely fixes the issue, though I wonder:quoted
- echo $expect >expected - test_expect_${4:-sucess} $PREREQ "basic atom: $1 contents:size" ' + echo $expect >expect + test_expect_${4:-success} $PREREQ "basic atom: $1 contents:size" ' git for-each-ref --format="%(contents:size)" "$ref" >actual && test_cmp expect actual 'Should we instead switch the test_cmp to look at "expected" to be consistent with the rest of the tests in this file?If I recall correctly, "expect vs actual" were more common when I counted across all the tests last time. Matching local convention is fine, though.
Yes, I agree that "expect" is where we should be heading overall. I think matching local convention is best here to avoid introducing new mistakes like this one, but I wouldn't be opposed to somebody switching out s/expected/expect/ in the whole file. -Peff