Srinidhi Kaushik <shrinidhi.kaushik@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > -test_expect_success 'diff-files/diff-cached shows ita as new/not-new files' ' > +test_expect_success 'diff/diff-cached shows ita as new/not-new files' ' > git reset --hard && > echo new >new-ita && > git add -N new-ita && Interesting. I thought that the test originally tested "diff-files" and "diff-index --cached" and a modernization patch forgot to update the title when the test body was changed to use "diff" and "diff --cached", but that is not the case here. When 0231ae71 (diff: turn --ita-invisible-in-index on by default, 2018-05-26) added this test, it gave a wrong title from the beginning. Nice catch. > @@ -243,6 +243,29 @@ test_expect_success 'diff-files/diff-cached shows ita as new/not-new files' ' > test_must_be_empty actual2 > ' > > +test_expect_success 'diff-files shows i-t-a files as new files' ' > + git reset --hard && > + touch empty && Use of "touch" gives a wrong impression that you care about the file timestamp; use something like ": >empty &&" instead when you care about the presence of the file and do not care about its timestamp. > + content="foo" && > + echo $content >not-empty && The quoting decision is backwards in these two lines. It is OK not to quote when the right hand side literal is clearly a single word without $IFS. On the other hand, it is a good practice to always quote when using what is in a "$variable". > + git add -N empty not-empty && > + git diff-files -p >actual && > + hash_e=$(git hash-object empty) && > + hash_n=$(git hash-object not-empty) && > + cat >expect <<-EOF && > + diff --git a/empty b/empty > + new file mode 100644 > + index 0000000..$(git rev-parse --short $hash_e) > + diff --git a/not-empty b/not-empty > + new file mode 100644 > + index 0000000..$(git rev-parse --short $hash_n) > + --- /dev/null > + +++ b/not-empty > + @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > + +$content > + EOF > + test_cmp expect actual > +' OK. Do we want to show what happens when "diff" and "diff --cached" are run with these two "added but not quite added yet" paths to contrast with this new case? Thanks.
