Hi Junio
On 24/04/2024 16:35, Junio C Hamano wrote:
phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx writes:
On 22/04/2024 16:50, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Rubén Justo <rjusto@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
1: 0317594bce ! 1: b418b03f15 add-patch: response to unknown command
@@ t/t3701-add-interactive.sh: test_expect_success 'warn about add.interactive.useB
+ test_when_finished "git reset --hard; rm -f command" &&
+ echo W >command &&
+ git add -N command &&
-+ cat >expect <<-EOF &&
-+ diff --git a/command b/command
-+ new file mode 100644
-+ index 0000000..a42d8ff
-+ --- /dev/null
-+ +++ b/command
-+ @@ -0,0 +1 @@
-+ +W
++ git diff command >expect &&
++ cat >>expect <<-EOF &&
+ (1/1) Stage addition [y,n,q,a,d,e,p,?]? Unknown command ${SQ}W${SQ} (use ${SQ}?${SQ} for help)
+ (1/1) Stage addition [y,n,q,a,d,e,p,?]?$SP
+ EOF
Interesting.
My first reaction was "how is this different from checking just the
last line of the actual output? The early part of expect and actual
both come from an internal invocation of 'git diff', and they must
match by definition".
But that may really be the point of this test.
Yes - we want to make sure that we are not printing the help and the
only way to do that is to check the whole output
I was not questioning that part of the patch. "My first reaction"
was solely about use of "git diff" to replace the golden copy of
expected result in the test itself, only to allow for use of
different hash functions. As you (or somebody else?) mentioned in
an earlier review, diff_cmp is there for exactly that purpose.
Oh sorry I'd misunderstood
That is, we may later decide to tweak the way "git diff" hunks are
presented, and we expect that the way "git add -p" presents the
hunks would change together with it automatically.
This argument cuts both ways, by the way.
Insisting that the output match the explicit expectation (not what
"git diff" of the day produces) has a few advantages. It makes the
test more explicit and easy to see what output we are expecting, and
more importantly, it forces us to update the test when we decide to
tweak the output from the command being tested (i.e. hunk selection
UI) and/or the output from "git diff" command.
There is also a practical argument against using "git diff" to generate
the expected output as it only works if the diff contains a single hunk.
If the diff contains more than one hunk "add -p" displays them separately.
Best Wishes
Phillip
