Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 9/22/2020 1:46 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> +test_expect_success 'ensure that filter is written to config' ' >>> + FILTER=$(git -C client config --get remote.blah.partialclonefilter) && >>> + test "$FILTER" == "blob:limit=0" >> >> I'll do s/==/=/ locally because otherwise the test-lint-shell-syntax >> will choke on this line. No need to resend only this line. > > Wouldn't "test_cmp_config" be a better here? It seems like > this is testing the "git clone" behavior of the previous test, > so it could be added to that test instead. TIL that one ;-) "git config --get" gives only a single instance, but in this particular case, shouldn't we be verifying not just that the expected one is found, but it is the only one, with "--get-all"? FWIW, many uses of that test helper may want to be tightened the same way. In short, unless we are testing the last-one-wins behaviour, and especially when we are interested in what changes our tested operation makes to the config file's contents, we should be using "--get-all" instead of the default "--get", I suspect. Thanks.
