Thanks for the feedback Junio. I was wondering if I should resubmit the patch without my comments. Also, I was wondering if I should be adding a call to check the exit codes of this test and the file called 'actual' at the end of the script. On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:39 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Khalid Ali <khalludi123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The exit code of the upstream in a pipe is ignored thus we > > should avoid using it. By writing out the output of the git command to a > > file, we can test the exit codes of both the commands. > > End the log message here by moving the next two paragraphs below the > three-dash line. > > > > > Aside from the commit message, I plan to apply for GSoC. Planning to > > solve the rebase/cherry-pick issue or adding functionality for the > > rebase interactive command. > > > > Any review on this commit would be appreciated! > > > > Signed-off-by: Khalid Ali <khalludi123@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh | 11 ++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh b/t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh > > index 602b0a5d5c..2f4e80ed55 100755 > > --- a/t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh > > +++ b/t/t9811-git-p4-label-import.sh > > @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ test_expect_success 'basic p4 labels' ' > > git checkout TAG_WITH\$_SHELL_CHAR && > > test -f f1 && test -f f2 && test -f file_with_\$metachar && > > > > - git show TAG_LONG_LABEL | grep -q "A Label second line" > > + git show TAG_LONG_LABEL >actual && > > + grep -q "A Label second line" actual > > There is no mention of file 'actual' before this patch, so we can > reasonably be sure that we are not breaking expectations of existing > test that a file with that name has contents different from what the > above command produces. On the other hand, if later tests have > things like "git add ." or "git status -s" and expects that there is > no such file called 'actual', this change may have broken the > expectation. > > I *think* the above is done after going inside $git directory, which > will be removed with "test_when_finished cleanup_git", so it is > fairly clear that leaving an extra file 'actual' behind at this > point is safe. > > This is not a problem with this conversion, but we tend to avoid > squelching standard output to help debugging tests. An independent > clean-up patch may want to replace "grep -q" with just "grep". > > > @@ -92,9 +93,9 @@ test_expect_success 'two labels on the same changelist' ' > > cd "$git" && > > git p4 sync --import-labels && > > > > - git tag | grep TAG_F1 && > > - git tag | grep -q TAG_F1_1 && > > - git tag | grep -q TAG_F1_2 && > > + git tag >actual && grep TAG_F1 actual && > > + git tag >actual && grep -q TAG_F1_1 actual && > > + git tag >actual && grep -q TAG_F1_2 actual && > > Ditto. > > > > > cd main && > > > > @@ -205,7 +206,7 @@ test_expect_success 'use git config to enable import/export of tags' ' > > git p4 rebase --verbose && > > git p4 submit --verbose && > > git tag && > > - git tag | grep TAG_F1_1 > > + git tag >actual && grep TAG_F1_1 actual > > ) && > > I notice that this test piece does not call cleanup_git when it is > done. I think that is a mistake (not introduced by this patch) that > ma want to get fixed independently. > > > ( > > cd "$cli" &&
