On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:19 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 6:09 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So, t5000 seems to be one of those relatively rare cases in which the > > raw "test" command is more correct than the higher-level helper > > functions. > > By the way, although the change made by this patch is probably > undesirable, if you would like to try a different submission, there is > a bit of modernization that could be applied to t5000. In particular, > the "archive and :(glob)" test does not match present-day style > guidelines: > > git archive -v HEAD -- ":(glob)**/sh" >/dev/null 2>actual && > cat >expect <<EOF && > a/ > a/bin/ > a/bin/sh > EOF > test_cmp expect actual > > These days, we would use `<<-EOF` rather than `<<EOF` to allow the > here-doc body to be indented to the same depth as the `cat` command > itself. Furthermore, we would use `\EOF` to indicate to the reader > that no interpolation is expected within the body. Taken together, the > final result would be: > > git archive -v HEAD -- ":(glob)**/sh" >/dev/null 2>actual && > cat >expect <<-\EOF && > a/ > a/bin/ > a/bin/sh > EOF > test_cmp expect actual > > Both cleanups can be done via a single patch; the commit message > should mention both modernizations. I would be happy to help and submit another patch for this test based on your observations above. Thanks for the suggestion. I am trying to get used to the development workflow of emailing patches and generally getting familiar with the code base and this seems like a small but important step in the right direction. Thanks
