On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 4:47 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Style: write `!ce` rather than `ce == NULL`:
OK, but I'll go with Junio's suggestion of getting `ce` once and
then checking `ce_staged` anyway. (I'm used to a different
style guide that frowns on `if (ce)` and `if (!ce)`...)
> As for bikeshedding the message itself, perhaps:
>
> _("conflicted");
>
> Though, perhaps that's too succinct.
Maybe. Succinct is usually good though.
> > + touch conflicted &&
>
> If the timestamp of the file is not relevant to the test -- as is the
> case here -- then we avoid using `touch`. Instead:
>
> >conflicted &&
OK.
> ... use literal TABs and let the here-doc provide the newlines.
I personally hate depending on literal tabs, as they're really
hard to see. If q_to_tab() is OK I'll use that.
> I realize that this test script is already filled with this sort of
> thing where actions are performed outside of tests, however, these
> days we frown upon that, and there really isn't a good reason to avoid
> taking care of this clean up via the modern idiom of using
> test_when_finished(), which you would call immediately after creating
> the file in the test. So:
>
> ...
> >conflicted &&
> test_when_finished "rm -f conflicted" &&
> ...
Indeed, that's where I copied it from.
Should I clean up other instances of separated-out `rm -f`s
in this file in a separate commit?
Chris
