Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> There's another downside to that construct: it loses the exit
>> status from some_cmd.
>
> Yes, although I think in many cases it's not a big deal. For example,
> here we lose the exit code of count-objects, but it also is very
> unlikely to fail _and_ produce our expected output.
It could segfault after producing the good output, but sure,
count-objects code doesn't change very often.
[...]
> One of my goals was to provide a more generic helper so that we don't
> have to make little helpers like this for every command. So I'd much
> rather something like:
>
> test_output () {
> printf "%s\n" "$1" >expect &&
> shift &&
> "$@" >output &&
> test_cmp expect output
> }
I agree with the principle in general.
Unfortunately that wouldn't help here --- the "$@" is a command with a
pipe to sed in it and we still lose the exit status from
count-objects.
Hoping that clarifies,
Jonathan
--
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