On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 6:41 AM Đoàn Trần Công Danh
<congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We will lose the exit status of "git ls-files" if it's being run in
> anywhere-but-not-final part of a pipe.
>
> Let's send the output of "git ls-files" to a file first,
> and adjust the expected result for "git ls-files -o" since a new
> untracked file will be created as a side effect.
>
> Signed-off-by: Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t6402-merge-rename.sh b/t/t6402-merge-rename.sh
> @@ -631,20 +663,33 @@ test_expect_success 'check handling of differently renamed file with D/F conflic
> - test 5 -eq "$(git ls-files -s | wc -l)" &&
> - test 3 -eq "$(git ls-files -u | wc -l)" &&
> - test 1 -eq "$(git ls-files -u one~HEAD | wc -l)" &&
> + git ls-files -s >output &&
> + test_line_count = 5 output &&
> + git ls-files -u >output &&
> + test_line_count = 3 output &&
> + git ls-files -u one~HEAD >output &&
> + test_line_count = 1 output &&
This idiom crops up so frequently in this test script that it almost
begs for the introduction of a helper function rather than applying
the manual transformation repeatedly. For instance, the helper might
be called like this:
count_ls_files 5 -s &&
count_ls_files 3 -u &&
count_ls_files 1 -u one~HEAD &&
...
The nice thing about having a helper function is that it can clean up
after itself by not leaving a new file lying around, thus you wouldn't
have to make adjustments to the expected number of untracked files (as
mentioned in the commit message). If this is the sort of thing which
comes up often enough (if there are more such cases beyond the two
scripts you changed in this series), then it might make sense to
promote the helper function to test-lib-functions.sh.
