Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 06:48:49PM +0200, Beat Bolli wrote: > >> -test_expect_success '24-bit colors' ' >> - color "#ff00ff black" "[38;2;255;0;255;40m" >> +test_expect_success 'RGB colors' ' >> + color "#ff00ff #0f0" "[38;2;255;0;255;48;2;0;255;0m" >> ' > > Heh, I would still think of it as a shorthand for 24-bit color, but I > guess you could argue it is now 12-bit color. :) > > (Only observing, I think the new name is fine). > >> test_expect_success '"default" foreground' ' >> @@ -146,7 +146,10 @@ test_expect_success 'non-hex character in RGB color' ' >> invalid_color "#12x456" && >> invalid_color "#123x56" && >> invalid_color "#1234x6" && >> - invalid_color "#12345x" >> + invalid_color "#12345x" && >> + invalid_color "#x23" && >> + invalid_color "#1x3" && >> + invalid_color "#12x" >> ' > > This made me wonder what we'd do with "#1", "#12", "#1234", etc. Looking > at the code change, I think we'd continue to reject them. I wonder if it > is worth covering here. Worth covering in this test, yes, but I am perfectly OK with leaving it outside the series as a #leftoverbit clean-up.
