Re: [PATCH] Fix t7004 which fails with retarded sed

> Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:
> 
> > Brown paper bag fix to avoid test failure with retarded sed. The test
> > by itself didn't catch what it was supposed to, anyways.
> 
> I'd rather not to say "retarded sed".  It is not fair to blame
> the implementation when the script we feed to it is not
> portable.
> 
> >  test_expect_success \
> >  	'message in editor has initial comment' '
> >  	GIT_EDITOR=cat git tag -a initial-comment > actual || true &&
> > -	test $(sed -n "/^\(#\|\$\)/p" actual | wc -l) -gt 0
> > +	grep -e "^$" actual > /dev/null 2>&1 &&
> > +	grep -e "^#" actual > /dev/null 2>&1 &&
> > +	! grep -e "^[^#]" actual > /dev/null 2>&1
> 
> The test simulates a case where
> 
> 	$ git tag -a initial-comment
> 
> is run and the user exits the editor without editing the file to
> add any text to annotate the tag.  The behaviour we want from
> such an invocation is (1) the user sees a sensible template in
> the editor, and (2) the command to error out, saying "Hey, you
> did not leave any message for us to use".
> 
> So the earlier part of the test
> 
> 	GIT_EDITOR=cat git tag -a initial-comment > actual || true &&
> 
> is already bogus with respect to the latter point.  It will
> happily continue if "git tag" erroneously returns success, and
> the above does not catch it.
> 
> 	if GIT_EDITOR=cat git tag -a initial-comment >actual
>         then
>         	echo >&2 oops we should have errored out
>                 false
> 	else
>         	: happy -- anything else we want to check?
> 	fi

> The "actual" file contains what the user saw in the editor and
> returned to the "git tag" command.
> 
> The template we give to the user begins with a blank line,
> followed by a brief instruction "write a tag message" as
> comments to be stripped.  The test is trying to make sure that
> is what was given to the user.  As you already discussed in the
> thread, the exact wording may change in the future and we would
> not want to adjust the test every time.
> 
> I think the important points about this template are:
> 
>  * It begins with a single blank line, where the invoked editor
>    would typically place the editing curser at so that the user
>    can immediately start typing;
> 
>  * It has some instruction but that comes after that initial
>    blank line, all lines prefixed with "#".  I do not think we
>    would want to check the wording of this instruction.
> 
>  * And it has nothing else, as the expected behaviour is "Hey
>    you did not leave any message".