On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 3:08 PM Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh b/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh
> @@ -154,20 +154,23 @@ do
> -test_expect_success 'NUL termination with --reflog --pretty=oneline' '
> - >expect &&
> - revs="$(git rev-list --reflog)" &&
> - [...]
> - test_cmp expect actual
> -'
> +for p in oneline summary
> +do
> + test_expect_success "NUL termination with --reflog --pretty=$p" '
> + >expect &&
> + revs="$(git rev-list --reflog)" &&
> + [...]
> + test_cmp expect actual
> + '
> +done
This patch would be less noisy (by eliminating the indentation change)
if you wrapped this test in a for-loop back in 7/10 where it was
introduced, with the intention of adding more items to the 'for' list.
So, in 7/10, you'd have this:
for p in online
do
test_expect_success "NUL termination with --reflog --pretty=$p" '
...
'
done
and this patch, 9/10, would just make the minor change:
-for p in oneline
+for p in oneline summary
Having a for-loop with only a single item is a minor-ugly which pays
off with less noise in subsequent patch(es), thus easing review
burden.
