ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> But is this testing the right thing? > > Yes, I am sure about that cut can do the same thing as awk, and it can > specify its delimiter. That is not an answer to "is this testing the right thing?" question, though ;-) >> > +test_expect_success 'git ls-files --format objectmode v.s. -s' ' >> > + git ls-files -s >files && >> > + cut -d" " -f1 files >expect && >> > + git ls-files --format="%(objectmode)" >actual && >> > + test_cmp expect actual >> > +' >> >> It only looks at the first column of the "-s" output, and we are >> implicitly assuming that the order of output does not change between >> the "-s" output and "--format=<format>" output. I wonder if it is >> more useful and less error prone to come up with a format string >> that 100% reproduces the "ls-files -s" output and compare the two, >> e.g. >> >> format="%(objectmode) %(objectname) %(stage) %(path)" && >> git ls-files -s >expect && >> git ls-files --format="$format" >actual && >> test_cmp expect actual >> > > See test case: 'git ls-files --format imitate --stage' which just do such thing, That was not the point. By extracting only "%(objectmode)" without having any other clues (like "%(path)") on the same line, the test is assuming that ls-files will always sort its output in the same order regardless of the output format, whether it is "--stage" or "--format=<spec>", and that was what the "is this testing the right thing?" question was about. The other test that makes sure --format=<spec> can recreate --stage output is fine. If some future developer breaks the output order by mistake for --format=<spec>, we will catch such a mistake with it. > maybe I should change its name to 'git ls-files --format v.s. -s'? I do not think you should. "A v.s. B" does not imply "A and B should create identical result". The original title describes what it does much more clearly.
