Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Mark pretty formats containing "%(decorate" as requiring decoration in > userformat_find_requirements(), same as "%d" and "%D". Ah, of course. The patch makes sense. > diff --git a/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh b/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh > index 16626e4fe9..5aabc9f7d8 100755 > --- a/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh > +++ b/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh > @@ -590,9 +590,9 @@ test_expect_success 'pretty format %decorate' ' > git log --format="%(decorate:prefix=,suffix=)" -1 >actual2 && > test_cmp expect2 actual2 && > > - echo "[ HEAD -> foo; tag: bar; qux ]" >expect3 && > - git log --format="%(decorate:prefix=[ ,suffix= ],separator=%x3B )" \ > - -1 >actual3 && > + echo "[ bar; qux; foo ]" >expect3 && > + git log --format="%(decorate:prefix=[ ,suffix= ],separator=%x3B ,tag=)" \ > + --decorate-refs=refs/ -1 >actual3 && > test_cmp expect3 actual3 && The original test shares the same, but is the order of multiple decorations expected to be stable? I feel a bit uneasy to see a test that insists multiple things come out in a hardcoded order. It is not making anything _worse_, so let's take the patch as-is. Thanks. > # Try with a typo (in "separator"), in which case the placeholder should
