On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 07:44:06PM +0100, Adam Spiers wrote: > > Is it just that you are dropping the '\' in all of the here-docs because > > they are not needed? > > Hmm, I think I previously misunderstood the point of the \\ due to > never seeing that syntax before (since my Perl background taught me to > write <<'EOF' instead). I noticed that the tests all passed without > it, and mistakenly assumed it had become unnecessary due to the > refactoring. OK. You can write 'EOF' in the shell, too, but we tend not to in this project (and you can write \EOF in perl, but I agree that it is much less common in perl code I have seen). Looking at it again, it is actually quite subtle what is going on. We wrap the outer test_expect_* calls in double-quotes so that the inner ones can use single-quotes easily. But that means that technically the contents of the here-doc _are_ interpolated. But not at test run-time, but rather at the call to test_expect_*. And that is why we nee to use "\\" instead of "\". So I think anybody trying to tweak these tests using shell metacharacters is in for a surprise either way. I'm not sure it is worth worrying about, though, as handling it would probably make the existing tests less readable. > > Also, why is this one not converted into a check_sub... invocation? > > Because it was much further down in that file so I didn't notice it > during the refactoring ;-) OK. :) > I've also noticed I can use test_must_fail instead of introducing > run_sub_test_lib_test_expecting_failures. Good catch. I didn't notice that, but it definitely makes sense to reuse it. > > So I'll have to re-roll 4--6 again. Presumably I can just reply to > [PATCH v2 4/6] with modified v3 versions without having to resend > the first three in the series, which haven't changed. It all looks sane to me. Thanks again. -Peff -- 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