Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] t7063: more thorough status checking

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:

>> +# Ignore_Untracked_Cache, abbreviated to 3 letters because then people can
>> +# compare commands side-by-side, e.g.
>> +#    iuc status --porcelain >expect &&
>> +#    git status --porcelain >actual &&
>> +#    test_cmp expect actual

;-)

>> +iuc() {

Missing SP after "iuc".

>> +	git ls-files -s >../current-index-entries
>> +	git ls-files -t | grep ^S | sed -e s/^S.// >../current-sparse-entries

When you see yourself piping grep output to sed, think twice to see
if you can lose one of them.  sed -ne 's/^S.//p' perhaps?

>> +
>> +	GIT_INDEX_FILE=.git/tmp_index
>> +	export GIT_INDEX_FILE
>> +	git update-index --index-info <../current-index-entries
>> +	git update-index --skip-worktree $(cat ../current-sparse-entries)

Are the dances with ls-files and update-index to prepare us for a
possible future in which we do not use .git/index as the index file,
or something?  IOW, would 

	export GIT_INDEX_FILE=.git/tmp_index &&
	cp .git/index "$GIT_INDEX_FILE &&

be insufficient?

>> +
>> +	git -c core.untrackedCache=false "$@"
>> +	ret=$?
>> +
>> +	rm ../current-index-entries
>> +	rm $GIT_INDEX_FILE
>> +	unset GIT_INDEX_FILE
>> +
>> +	return $ret
>> +}
>
> This is a clever way to get around the untracked cache deletion.
>
> Thanks for adding these extra comparisons! It really does help guarantee
> that we are doing the right thing in each case.

Yes, I think it is a great idea to see tested commands behave the
same way with or without the untracked cache.

Thanks.