On 6/7/2023 7:09 AM, Phillip Wood wrote:

On 06/06/2023 15:20, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:

quoted

From: Derrick Stolee <redacted>

      -+    *** Commands ***
      -+      1: [s]tatus      2: [u]pdate      3: [r]evert      4: [a]dd untracked
      -+      5: [p]atch      6: [d]iff      7: [q]uit      8: [h]elp
      -+    What now> status        - show paths with changes
      -+    update        - add working tree state to the staged set of changes
      -+    revert        - revert staged set of changes back to the HEAD version
      -+    patch         - pick hunks and update selectively
      -+    diff          - view diff between HEAD and index
      -+    add untracked - add contents of untracked files to the staged set of changes
      -+    *** Commands ***
      -+      1: [s]tatus      2: [u]pdate      3: [r]evert      4: [a]dd untracked
      -+      5: [p]atch      6: [d]iff      7: [q]uit      8: [h]elp
      -+    What now> Bye.
      -+    EOF
      -+    test_cmp expect actual
      ++    test_cmp actual.raw actual
       +'

I know Junio suggested this change, but I'm in two minds as to whether
it is a good idea. The reason is that we're no-longer testing that we
add "[]" around the text that would have been highlighted if color was
enabled. That is with --color we print "1: status" with the "s" highlighted
rather than "1: [s]tatus". So while the revised patch tests there is no
color in the output, it does not test that we print the output correctly
in that case.

This is a good point, and something that I somewhat expected to find as
an example check in the rest of the test script. I think the color would
be disabled if we didn't do force_color, even before this fix.

However, I'll double-check that by adding a separate test for just that
bit of the UI, keeping this color.ui=false test focused on the color side
of things.

Thanks,
-Stolee