Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] t: add lib-crlf-messages.sh for messages containing CRLF

[Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>]

Hi Junio,

> Le 12 oct. 2020 à 18:22, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit :
> 
> "Philippe Blain via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
>> 
>> A following commit will fix a bug in the ref-filter API that causes
>> commit and tag messages containing CRLF to be incorrectly parsed and
>> displayed.
>> 
>> Add a test library (t/lib-crlf-messages.sh) that creates refs with such
>> commit messages, so that we can easily test that this bug does not
>> appear in other commands in the future.
>> ...
>> The function `test_crlf_subject_body_and_contents` can be used to test
>> that the `--format` option of `branch`, `tag`, `for-each-ref` and
>> `log` correctly displays the subject, body and raw content of commits and
>> tag messages.
> 
> I am not sure about the wisdom of this arrangement.  Surely you do
> not want to write duplicated set-up for (existing) test scripts for
> for-each-ref, branch and tag subcommands, assuming that these test
> scripts are separated for subcommands they test.
> 
> But you can have a single test script, that is differentiated from
> all other test scripts by what it tests: having to deal with commits
> that use CRLF.  Then we do not have to add dot-includable test
> library that lets various tests to create these same funny commits.
> Instead, we can just do these as normal set-up step(s) for that
> single test scripts, and then in that test scripts, verify what is
> shown by various commands that share the underlying ref-filter
> machinery.  No?

Yes. I was thinking that it made more sense for the tests
to be in existing test scripts, but if you feel a separate test
script is warranted for these tests, I'll do that instead.

Thanks,

Philippe.