Re: [PATCH v3] status: long status advice adapted to recent capabilities

[Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 3:07 PM Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/22 5:27 PM, Rudy Rigot via GitGitGadget wrote:> +UNTRACKED FILES AND STATUS SPEED
> > +test_expect_success 'when core.untrackedCache true, and fsmonitor' '
> > +    git config core.untrackedCache true &&
> > +     git config core.fsmonitor true &&
> > +    git status | sed "s/[0-9]\.[0-9][0-9]/X/g" >../actual &&
> > +    test_cmp "$DATA/with_untrackedcache_with_fsmonitor" ../actual &&
> > +    rm -fr ../actual
> > +'
> > +
> > diff --git a/t/t7065/no_untrackedcache_no_fsmonitor b/t/t7065/no_untrackedcache_no_fsmonitor
> > diff --git a/t/t7065/with_untrackedcache_no_fsmonitor b/t/t7065/with_untrackedcache_no_fsmonitor
> > diff --git a/t/t7065/with_untrackedcache_with_fsmonitor b/t/t7065/with_untrackedcache_with_fsmonitor
>
> These files are small enough that I think I'd rather see them
> be created in the test script. You can use this kind of syntax:
>
>         cat >expect <<-\EOF
>         <file contents here>
>         EOF &&
>
> and then the test is self-contained. This is particularly
> helpful when a test fails due to some future change in this
> message.

I've been meaning to respond to say the exact same thing about using
here-doc instead.

Also, the new tests seem to have an oddball mixture of indentation
using spaces and TAB. They should be using TAB only.