Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> +test_expect_success 'diff -U0' ' >>> + >>> + git diff -U0 | sed -e "/^index/d" -e "s/$z2047/Z/g" >actual && >>> + diff -u expect actual >> >> Aren't we using "git diff" for the second diff there nowadays? > > Some people seem to think that is a good idea, but I generally do not > like using "git diff" between expect and actual (both untracked) inside > tests. The last "diff" is about validating what git does and using "git > diff" there would make the test meaningless when "git diff" itself is > broken. > > This is especially so because comparison between untracked files is a > bolted-on afterthought and I am least confident about among the > codepaths in the whole "git diff" (it is not even my nor Linus's code). Side note. The "confidence" I am talking about the above is not about the correct-working of the current code. It seems to work fine. It is about the fact it was bolted on rather than designed in from the beginning---it is much likely to subtly break than other parts that are much more integrated when you change seemingly unrelated thing like git-dir discovery and rename detection. IOW, the confidence is about the fixability/maintainability when somebody breaks it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
