Hi, On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > El 17/12/2007, a las 11:39, Johannes Schindelin escribi?: > > > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > > > > > El 16/12/2007, a las 23:29, Jeff King escribi?: > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:23:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I think that is a valid concern. But ISTR that were some issues > > > > with using GNU diff. Commit 5bd74506 mentions getting rid of the > > > > dependency in all existing tests, but gives no reason. > > > > > > I'd say it's safe and sensible to use "git diff" in all tests > > > *except* for tests of "git diff" itself. > > > > To the contrary. It has to test "git diff", so it must use "git > > diff". > > Obviously, you can only test "git diff" by actually running it. Sorry, I should have made clear that I meant this as funny: ;-) > > As for the reference output: we include the expected diffs as texts, > > and therefore do not really have to rely on having GNU diff installed. > > > > Besides, we cannot even test the goodies like "rename from" by > > comparing to GNU diff's output. > > Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. That's not what I was proposing at > all. I was talking about this kind of example: > > > + git diff -U0 | sed -e "/^index/d" -e "s/$z2047/Z/g" >actual && > > + diff -u expect actual > > First line uses "git diff", if the second line uses "git diff" as well > and "git diff" happens to be broken then you're using a broken tool to > test a broken tool, as Junio already pointed out. Hmm. There is some chicken-and-egg problem here (I read the thread, but did not really see a problem, as I assumed that _other_ tests would assure that "git diff --no-index" works as expected). But as at least one released version of GNU diff has a pretty serious bug, I would rather not rely too much on diff. (BTW this was the reason I wanted --no-index so badly.) So yeah, the second "diff" cannot be "git diff". Maybe "cmp", but not "git diff". Ciao, Dscho - 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
