Phillip Wood wrote:
> On 10/06/2021 17:47, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Phillip Wood wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2021 14:26, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>> Phillip Wood wrote:
> >>>> On 09/06/2021 20:28, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>>>> We want to test different combinations of merge.conflictstyle, and a new
> >>>>> file is the best place to do that.
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> diff --git a/t/t6440-config-conflict-markers.sh b/t/t6440-config-conflict-markers.sh
> >>>>> new file mode 100755
> >>>
> >>>>> +test_expect_success 'merge' '
> >>>>> + test_create_repo merge &&
> >>>>> + (
> >>>>> + cd merge &&
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + fill 1 2 3 >content &&
> >>>>> + git add content &&
> >>>>> + git commit -m base &&
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + git checkout -b r &&
> >>>>> + echo six >>content &&
> >>>>> + git commit -a -m right &&
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + git checkout master &&
> >>>>> + echo 7 >>content &&
> >>>>> + git commit -a -m left &&
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + test_must_fail git merge r &&
> >>>>> + ! grep -E "\|+" content &&
> >>>>
> >>>> ! grep "|" would be simpler and just as effective.
> >>>
> >>> But that would fail if there's a "command1 | command2".
> >>
> >> I don't understand. What are you expecting content to contain?
> >
> > Not a sequence of |.
> >
> >> Why doesn't "\|+" fail in that case?
> >
> > It would, perhaps "\|\|+" would be better, or maybe "\|{2,}".
>
> The point of my original comment was that you do not need an ERE - 'grep
> "||"' matches the same set of lines as 'grep -E "\|\|+"'. As it is
> testing for conflict markers anchoring the pattern to the beginning of a
> line would probably be a good idea.
Right, I didn't add that because I saw some tests not doing ^ when they
clearly should, so I thought perhaps there was a compatibility issue,
but now I see that ^ is already used in many tests, therefore "^\|\|+"
makes sense.
--
Felipe Contreras
