On 03/30, Jonathan Chang wrote: > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Chang <ttjtftx@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > t/t0000-basic.sh | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/t/t0000-basic.sh b/t/t0000-basic.sh > index 3de13daabe..49923c5ff1 100755 > --- a/t/t0000-basic.sh > +++ b/t/t0000-basic.sh > @@ -1118,16 +1118,18 @@ P=$(test_oid root) > > test_expect_success 'git commit-tree records the correct tree in a commit' ' > commit0=$(echo NO | git commit-tree $P) && > - git show --pretty=raw $commit0 >actual && This line has been introduced in a previous commit. If the file was called 'output' there already, I think that patch would be just as understandable, but this diff would be a little less noisy. > - tree=$(sed -n -e "s/^tree //p" -e "/^author /q" actual) && > - test "z$tree" = "z$P" > + git show --pretty=raw $commit0 >output && > + echo "$P" >expect && > + sed -n -e "s/^tree //p" -e "/^author /q" output >actual && I'd find it a bit more natural to either first create the expect file, and then do the 'git show' and 'sed' invocations in two subsequent lines, or do them first, and then create the expect files, rather than interleaving them. I'm not sure either of these by itself is worth a new iteration, unless there is also something else to fix up. But it's something that you might want to keep in mind for future patches. > + test_cmp expect actual > ' > > test_expect_success 'git commit-tree records the correct parent in a commit' ' > commit1=$(echo NO | git commit-tree $P -p $commit0) && > - git show --pretty=raw $commit1 >actual && > - parent=$(sed -n -e "s/^parent //p" -e "/^author /q" actual) && > - test "z$commit0" = "z$parent" > + git show --pretty=raw $commit1 >output && > + echo "$commit0" >expect && > + sed -n -e "s/^parent //p" -e "/^author /q" output >actual && > + test_cmp expect actual > ' > > test_expect_success 'git commit-tree omits duplicated parent in a commit' ' > -- > 2.21.0 >
