From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA871F990 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728043AbgHFRTY (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 13:19:24 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:55582 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730472AbgHFRSp (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 13:18:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677DB60256; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 13:18:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=cnuBL33SOPpQPdT44Sz9+ln2kdI=; b=Nf4gUD xXX5CTNzlbLMUJ1P8v4k3WnFeIsf8cBE5J8vNJGO7+nu980zkZdF1zDEbBYlGapA Y4C1ceqGQfATgYak+H9wIFQu/th+JeJhDYSywgzNj7kvcsc42xu6CwjdO0aSnDVB vmWLGpZ82atN19hsnBS3GmaG8RctPP6EguBO8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=kI2ar1APBSMiDiLJYm8IwBep8eFlfEQS L7oIk/tDEDEvYEkckiL8xwlObQ5VewKvJqMIvR65PYavDGHBg/sNj1IJ7ttYbIOi uHhUChjq6LAJQ506bJUOvufbR92narC42dmQH53Y3dFphJ3VVz5E9lNm8YxCmZGt NCnBqvFFigI= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F30760254; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 13:18:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.231.104.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF57960253; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 13:18:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Shourya Shukla Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, christian.couder@gmail.com, kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, liu.denton@gmail.com, me@ttaylorr.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] t7401: ensure uniformity in the '--for-status' test References: <20200805174921.16000-1-shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com> <20200805174921.16000-4-shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com> <20200806085043.GB13942@konoha> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:18:26 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200806085043.GB13942@konoha> (Shourya Shukla's message of "Thu, 6 Aug 2020 14:20:43 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D71F77A6-D808-11EA-B707-2F5D23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Shourya Shukla writes: > On 05/08 02:30, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Shourya Shukla writes: >> >> > The '--for-status' test got its expected output from stdin. This is >> > inconsistent with the other tests in the test script which get their >> > expected output from a file named 'expected'. >> > >> > So, change the syntax of the '--for-status' test for uniformity. >> >> There are a handful examples in t5401 and another one in t3700 that >> give the "golden master" from the standard input. When the expected >> output is used only once, I do not think it is particularlly bad to >> have it this way. So,... meh? > > I realised what you were trying to say after checking out t5400 and > t3700. I understand that this change may not be immediately needed but I > think it does make reading the diff a bit easier since having a '-' as a > file name does get a bit confusing when reading the output. If so, perhaps justifying the change based on that, not on "consistency", would be a good idea. Side note: But would that mean you'd find it "confusing" to read output from 3700 and 5400? Would "test writers should get used to it" be a workable alternative solution? Since "test_cmp expect actual" and "test_cmp - actual <