Paul Tan <pyokagan@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Just to avoid misunderstanding, please do not remove 'verbose ' >> blindly without thinking while doing so, as you already did 1/3 of >> the necessary job to make things better. > > Eh? I thought we established that using "verbose" does not provide > anything more than what "set -x" already provides. So at the very > least, its use should be removed completely. I did not mean "do not remove and keep them". I meant "do not remove without thinking; instead, take mental notes on patterns these silent ones may have while removing them". >> You might have noticed, while adding them, there were something >> common that we currently do with a bare 'test' only because we >> haven't identified common needs. As I already said,... >> ... >> That would be an improvement (and that is the remaining 2/3 ;-). > > Yeah, this kind of comparison with file contents is something that is > done often in t5520, so I agree with adding it. > > However, what about these kind of tests: > > test new = "$(git show HEAD:file2)" > > or these: > > test $(git rev-parse HEAD^2) = $(git rev-parse keep-merge) > > So, perhaps we could introduce a generic function like: It all depends on how common they are. > So the first example would be: > > test_output "git show HEAD:file2" new Simple things like that look fine, but when a variable is involved, use of eval combined with the fact that the test body is inside sq, makes the callers unnecessarily ugly. test_expect_success 'some title' ' var=$(...) && test_output "git show \$var:file2 | sed -e \"s/$old/$new/\"" new ' Which is the concern this shares with the other one I sent about counting the number of lines in the output from a command that made me hesitate to suggest it. So I dunno. -- 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