Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I may be misunderstanding your suggestion, but isn't the proposed > test_output_wc_l() function the same as what Danh had originally > implemented several re-rolls back (though he named it > test_line_count_cmd())? Could be, except that I recall we saw extra noises like --out/--err that weren't used and contaminating the current working directory, which are gone from the latest iteration. The simplification compared to that iteration is quite welcome---it made the resulting code that uses the helper easier to follow compared to the earlier attempts. But this round simplifies it too much and the results got harder to follow by burying the command name in the helper and made it less obvious that the last part of the helper's parameters are arguments given to ls-files, I would think.
