Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> +test_expect_success 'git ls-files --format objectmode v.s. -s' '
>>> -+ git ls-files -s | awk "{print \$1}" >expect &&
>>> ++ git ls-files -s >files &&
>>> ++ cut -d" " -f1 files >expect &&
>>
>> Either "awk" or "cut" is fine and flipping between them is a bit
>> distracting. Cutting the pipe into two is a good move.
>
> That "cut" suggestion saw mine, sorry about the churn...
As I said "cut" is perfectly fine. Unless this part goes away,
(i.e. perhaps we may decide that it is a bad idea to check only the
pieces of lines), let's not flip back to awk ;-)
>> format="%(objectmode) %(objectname) %(stage) %(path)" &&
>> git ls-files -s >expect &&
>> git ls-files --format="$format" >actual &&
>> test_cmp expect actual
>>
>> I do not know if the $format I wrote without looking at the doc is
>> correct, but you get the idea.
>
> Past rounds moved some tests towards that, maybe that's a good thing
> here too I didn't look deeply this time around...
OK, thanks for reviewing.
