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

From: Jeff Hostetler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:47:54 -0400

On 07/20/2016 11:30 AM, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> W dniu 2016-07-20 o 00:10, Jeff Hostetler pisze:
>> +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.

Also, some of the tests include SHAs for the commit and for
file content, so having pre-computed expected output is awkward.
Granted we could hard code the file SHAs, but not the commits.

Jeff