From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:31:58 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] t6300: introduce test_date() helper
Message-ID: <20150901223157.GE7862@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <8e869f362971a44bb1f40ca5fed98b658efaa0dd.1441144343.git.john@keeping.me.uk>

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:55:41PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:

> I considered moving the test_expect_success into the helper, like with
> test_atom earlier in the file, but it doesn't make the code much more
> concise and we still need either to setup the output outside the test
> case or to escape SQ inside SQ.

Moving it inside also makes it harder to test_expect_failure. :)

>  test_expect_success 'Check unformatted date fields output' '
> -	(git for-each-ref --shell --format="%(refname) %(committerdate) %(authordate)" refs/heads &&
> -	git for-each-ref --shell --format="%(refname) %(taggerdate)" refs/tags) >actual &&
> -	test_cmp expected actual
> +	test_date "" "Mon Jul 3 17:18:43 2006 +0200" "Mon Jul 3 17:18:44 2006 +0200" "Mon Jul 3 17:18:45 2006 +0200"

I notice we end up with rather long lines for some of these. Would:

  test_date "" <<-\EOF
  Mon Jul 3 17:18:43 2006 +0200
  Mon Jul 3 17:18:44 2006 +0200
  Mon Jul 3 17:18:45 2006 +0200
  EOF

be more readable?

-Peff