From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B7E1FC19 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:45:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757981AbdCXQpf (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:61470 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751818AbdCXQpd (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:33 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A3974793; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:31 -0400 (EDT) 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=hmMaqH+kzVHBPtHselMgNalRkoE=; b=CQYYBp 9BY8Hk2pX7ZxfUnHLAKBJ0ZwA7rn3LC7l8TakUzFeYEtHmnYrkIOOWPU7B2eXdAt glay04N2LruDwvnb68516T35oAABM0krt0EQwLjbU+TdQj7ZeSiFxrVLKGTnYbJi aUEZ6WG00vrGIj/nODgnEQjb7MgGIU1slUx/I= 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=v2oPAIcQkbERBDGPq/LY2kHSc2C3ufQW FQmFPD8BSBZ1KOldYt8WgQ4CHHldXpfiQbbLVHhS5xN3zxAXJCXOnfFZ2IGQftnf TAn5nIHLl4G+FLTD6xVAreBr4nGrNoef4m8466haA8PmoIZLyKNvZZWvFme+7d4R JDCQICY7kgM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C1A74792; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 345587478E; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:45:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Santiago Torres , git@vger.kernel.org, Jan Palus Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors References: <20170322200805.23837-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20170322200805.23837-4-gitster@pobox.com> <20170322211003.b52cql3iwig2xqcd@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170322221556.j7uj4vvgbcubcr3b@LykOS.localdomain> <20170322222230.yqqv6x4gokvb4jbz@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170322223441.w32y464jqbnxnzna@LykOS.localdomain> <20170322224124.u3eax4ui3y4saxks@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170322225108.wub4bmr63hk2sp33@LykOS.localdomain> <20170323234922.ot2vqblcnljacdtn@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:45:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170323234922.ot2vqblcnljacdtn@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:49:22 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4B09D396-10B1-11E7-AE89-FC50AE2156B6-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:00:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Santiago Torres writes: >> >> > This sounds like a helpful addition to implement. We could update/add >> > tests for compliance on this once the feature is addded and fix the >> > ambiguous behavior in the tests now. >> >> OK, so has everybody agreed what the next step would be? Is the >> patch below a good first step (I still need to get it signed off)? > > Yeah, I think this is the right fix. > >> -- >8 -- >> Subject: t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors >> From: Santiago Torres >> >> Jan Palus noticed that some here-doc are spelled incorrectly, >> resulting the entire remainder of the test as if it were data >> slurped into the "expect" file, e.g. in this sequence > > I had trouble parsing this. Perhaps: > > resulting in the entire remainder of the test snippet being slurped > into the "expect" file as if it were data Thanks. Will rephrase. I actually think this uncovers another class of breakage. t7030 tests should be protected with GPG prereq and 'fourth-signed' that is made only with the prereq in the first test will not be found. t7004 probably has the same issue.