On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:59:02AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
> diff --git a/t/t5317-pack-objects-filter-objects.sh b/t/t5317-pack-objects-filter-objects.sh
> index b26d476c64..2ff3eef9a3 100755
> --- a/t/t5317-pack-objects-filter-objects.sh
> +++ b/t/t5317-pack-objects-filter-objects.sh
> @@ -53,6 +53,14 @@ test_expect_success 'verify blob:none packfile has no blobs' '
> ! grep blob verify_result
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'verify blob:none packfile without --stdout' '
> + git -C r1 pack-objects --revs --filter=blob:none mypackname >packhash <<-EOF &&
> + HEAD
> + EOF
> + git -C r1 verify-pack -v "mypackname-$(cat packhash).pack" >verify_result &&
> + ! grep blob verify_result
> +'
Just a couple of style nits here. It's a little strange (for me, at
least) to see the heredoc into a git process. I wonder if it might be
clearer to write something like:
echo HEAD >in &&
git -C r1 pack-objects --revs --filter=blob:none $packdir/pack <in
, but I could certainly go either way on that one. I am less certain
about redirecting the output into a file "packhash", only to cat it back
out.
Do later tests depend on the existence of this file? If so, then what
you have makes sense. If not, I would recommend storing the output in a
variable, which avoids both the I/O operation, and the unnecessary "cat"
sub-process.
Thanks,
Taylor
