On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 09:52:07AM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 9:41 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 1/25/2019 11:54 AM, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > +test_expect_success '--combined-with-paths works with -z as well' ' > > > + printf "0f9645804ebb04cc3eef91f799eb7fb54d70cefb\0::100644 100644 100644 f00c965d8307308469e537302baa73048488f162 088bd5d92c2a8e0203ca8e7e4c2a5c692f6ae3f7 333b9c62519f285e1854830ade0fe1ef1d40ee1b RR\0file\twith\ttabs\0i\tam\ttabbed\0fickle\tnaming\0" >expect && > > > > I'm guessing that you use printf here because the > > 'cat <<-\EOF' approach doesn't work with the special > > tabs? Kudos for putting in the extra effort here for > > the special formatting! > > Yeah, I didn't know how to easily get NUL bytes in the stream without > printf, and once I was using printf the EOF HEREDOC no longer had a > useful purpose. In the first testcase, since there were only > printable characters in the expected output, a HEREDOC worked well. I > guess I could have just used printf for both testcases, but having the > literal output shown where it's possible for a human to read it seemed > like an advantage worth capitalizing on. If anyone feels strongly > that I should use printf for both tests, I can switch them though. I'm fine with the patch as it stands, but just for future reference (for you and anyone else), we have functions in the test library called nul_to_q and q_to_nul that convert NUL back and forth to the letter "Q". They can make it a bit easier to write tests where we expect some format to have NULs in it. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
