gitster@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:28 -0700: > Pete Wyckoff <pw@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > diff --git a/t/t9814-git-p4-rename.sh b/t/t9814-git-p4-rename.sh > > index 84fffb3..8be74b6 100755 > > --- a/t/t9814-git-p4-rename.sh > > +++ b/t/t9814-git-p4-rename.sh > > @@ -77,16 +77,16 @@ test_expect_success 'detect renames' ' > > git commit -a -m "Rename file1 to file4" && > > git diff-tree -r -M HEAD && > > git p4 submit && > > - p4 filelog //depot/file4 && > > - p4 filelog //depot/file4 | test_must_fail grep -q "branch from" && > > + p4 filelog //depot/file4 | tee filelog && > > + ! grep -q " from //depot" filelog && > > I am not a huge fan of using "tee" in our test scripts, especially > as it means piping output of another command whose output (and > presumably the behaviour) we care about, hiding its exit status. > > Fixing the incorrect use of piping to "test_must_fail grep" is a > good change, but is there anything wrong to do the above like this? > > p4 filelog //depot/file4 >filelog && > ! grep -q " from //depot" filelog && I'd started growing fond of "tee" as it shows all the output, and isolates the grep as a separate step. Much easier to see the bad output when a test fails. I'll switch around to your approach, adding a "cat filelog" line for interesting cases. -- Pete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html