Hi Peff, On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:54:10AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > -printf "%s\n" "00" > > +printf "%s" "00" > > This one is a behavior improvement: we were probably hitting "oops, > newline isn't a valid line-length character" before, and now we're > really hitting the truncated packet. The test currently actually greps for the "incomplete length" error message and it passes so the behaviour remains the same. We just got lucky that we send "00" instead of "000" beacuse "000\n" would've otherwise given us a full length header. > I don't know if it's worth adding an extra test with a bogus > line-length. I'm OK with with it either way. I think I'll leave this unless anyone really wants this to be tested. Thanks, Denton
