On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:12:30PM +0530, Mehul Jain wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:36:47PM +0530, Mehul Jain wrote: > >> diff --git a/t/t4202-log.sh b/t/t4202-log.sh > >> index 36be9a1..ea24259 100755 > >> --- a/t/t4202-log.sh > >> +++ b/t/t4202-log.sh > >> @@ -901,6 +901,13 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'log.showsignature=true behaves like --show-signature' ' > >> test_i18ngrep "gpg: Good signature" actual > >> ' > >> > >> +test_expect_success GPG '--no-show-signature overrides log.showsignature=true' ' > >> + git config log.showsignature true && > >> + git log -1 --no-show-signature signed >actual && > >> + test "$(test_i18ngrep "gpg: Signature made" actual)" = "" && > >> + test "$(test_i18ngrep "gpg: Good signature" actual)" = "" > >> +' > > > > Perhaps it would be more robust to simply grep for "gpg:". We should not > > be seeing any gpg-related lines in the output. It probably isn't that > > big a deal in practice, though. If the output from gpg changes, this > > test could report a false success, but all of the other nearby tests > > would show a breakage, so somebody would probably notice. > > That's a very good point. I will make the changes accordingly. While you are here, note that test_i18ngrep can already do the "negative" grep, like: test_i18ngrep ! "^gpg:" actual Though see my comments in the other part of the thread; I'm not sure it's worth using i18ngrep at all. -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