Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Am 25.02.21 um 03:52 schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> +# check each individual file >>> +for i in $(git -C t4018 ls-files) >>> +do >>> + test_expect_success "setup hunk header: $i" " >>> + grep -v '^t4018' \"t4018/$i\" >\"t4018/$i.content\" && >>> + sed -n -e 's/^t4018 header: //p' <\"t4018/$i\" >\"t4018/$i.header\" && >>> + cp \"t4018/$i.content\" \"$i\" && >>> >>> # add test file to the index >>> - git add "$i" && >>> + git add \"$i\" && >>> # place modified file in the worktree >>> - sed -e "s/ChangeMe/IWasChanged/" <"t4018/$i.content" >"$i" || return 1 >>> - done >>> -' >>> + sed -e 's/ChangeMe/IWasChanged/' <\"t4018/$i.content\" >\"$i\" >>> + " >> >> Please use '' around the second argument (i.e. test body) of the >> test_expect_success, and use "" inside it. "$i" that is used in the >> loop is visible perfectly fine inside the test body when it is >> eval'ed, and we won't have to count ugly backslashes that way. > > If we do that, then we better be sure that the implementation of > test_expect_success does not clobber $i. Looks like we are OK at this time. That's a good point. Often we use more specific variable name than $i to take advantage of the 'eval'-ed nature of the test body, and it may probably be wise to do so here, too.
