On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 01:10:48PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 11:16 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I sent a reply[1] in the other thread explaining why I'm still leaning > > > toward `sed` to smooth over these minor differences rather than > > > churning the "expect" files, especially since the minor differences > > > are not significant to what is actually being tested. > > > > If it is just one time bulk conversion under t/chainlint/ to match > > what the chainlint.pl script produces, with the possibility of > > similar bulk updates in the future when the script gets updated, I > > tend to agree with Patrick that getting rid of the fuzzy comparison > > will be the best way forward. > > Okay, that's fine. If we take this approach, though, then it would > make sense to eliminate _all_ gratuitous postprocessing of the > "expect" files[1] so that we really are comparing the direct output of > chainlint.pl with the "expect" files, rather than merely munging the > inline whitespace of the "expect" files slightly as Patrick's proposed > patch does[2]. > > (The only postprocessing of "expect" files which needs to stay is the > bit which removes the "# LINT:" comments which litter the "expect" > files explaining to human readers why the linter should insert a > "???FOO???" annotation at that particular point.) Okay. I'll send a v3 to also drop the other post-processing steps then. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
