Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:45:09PM +0200, Alban Gruin wrote:
>
>> b6839fda68 (ref-filter: add support for %(contents:size), 2020-07-16)
>> added a new format for ref-filter, and added a function to generate
>> tests for this new feature in t6300. Unfortunately, it tries to run
>> `test_expect_sucess' instead of `test_expect_success', and writes
>> $expect to `expected', but tries to read `expect'. Those two issues
>> were probably unnoticed because the script only printed errors, but did
>> not crash. This fixes these issues.
>
> Oh, this just crossed with my mail. :)
>
> Definitely fixes the issue, though I wonder:
>
>> - echo $expect >expected
>> - test_expect_${4:-sucess} $PREREQ "basic atom: $1 contents:size" '
>> + echo $expect >expect
>> + test_expect_${4:-success} $PREREQ "basic atom: $1 contents:size" '
>> git for-each-ref --format="%(contents:size)" "$ref" >actual &&
>> test_cmp expect actual
>> '
>
> Should we instead switch the test_cmp to look at "expected" to be
> consistent with the rest of the tests in this file?
If I recall correctly, "expect vs actual" were more common when I
counted across all the tests last time. Matching local convention
is fine, though.
