Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> test_expect_success 'check-mailmap bogus contact' ' >> - test_must_fail git check-mailmap bogus >> + cat >expect <<-EOF && >> + <bogus> >> + EOF >> + git check-mailmap bogus >actual && >> + test_cmp expect actual >> ' > > I think I'd just remove this test case altogether, IIUC it' doesn't > provide any additional value vs. the "check-mailmap simple address: no > mapping" test below. Sorry, but I do not follow. The other one is <bogus@xxxxxxxxxx> that looks more globally routable address than a local-only <bogus> mailbox. Isn't it worth ensuring that we will keep treating them the same way? Having said that ... >> -For each ``Name $$<user@host>$$'' or ``$$<user@host>$$'' from the command-line >> -or standard input (when using `--stdin`), look up the person's canonical name >> -and email address (see "Mapping Authors" below). If found, print them; >> -otherwise print the input as-is. >> +For each ``Name $$<user@host>$$'', ``$$<user@host>$$'', or ``$$user@host$$'' >> +from the command-line or standard input (when using `--stdin`), look up the >> +person's canonical name and email address (see "Mapping Authors" below). If >> +found, print them; otherwise print the input as-is. ... it seems that <user> without <@host> is a supported format. Should we update the document, too? If the @host-less name is meant to trigger a random unspecified behaviour, whatever the code happens to do, that is perfectly fine, but then we probably should not be etching it in the stone by writing a test for it. So because of a reason that is completely different from yours, I'd support removal of the "bogus" test, if that is the case. Thanks.
