Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 于2022年7月24日周日 02:40写道： > > 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. > Ah, so that we should sort the ls-files output first, and then compare them. > 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. Ok, here I don't need another rerolling to revert it, right? Thanks for all the reviews! ZheNing Hu
