Re: [PATCH] t5551: compare sorted cookies files

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 17, 2018, 21:19 UTC
Message-ID: <20180917211926.GI140909@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180917211026.GA4095@hank.intra.tgummerer.com>

Thomas Gummerer wrote:

> On 09/17, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>>                                                         The other
>> effort implicitly depends on the expected output is kept sorted, but
>> this one is more explicit---I tend to prefer this approach as tools
>> and automation is easier to maintain than having to remember that
>> the source must be sorted.
>
> I'm happy going with either patch, but if we want to go with mine, I'd
> like to make sure Todd is credited appropriately, as he sent a very
> similar patch first.  Not sure what the appropriate way here is
> though?

Thanks for asking.  Credit is a subject that is dear to my heart.

You can for example use
Reported-by: Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>

to credit him for the patch and analysis that appears to have helped with reviews (and to signal that this fixes the bug he reported).

[...]

Show 8 quoted lines

>>> --- a/t/t5551-http-fetch-smart.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t5551-http-fetch-smart.sh
>>> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ test_expect_success 'dumb clone via http-backend respects namespace' '
>>>  cat >cookies.txt <<EOF
>>>  127.0.0.1	FALSE	/smart_cookies/	FALSE	0	othername	othervalue
>>>  EOF
>>> -cat >expect_cookies.txt <<EOF
>>> +cat <<EOF | sort >expect_cookies.txt

Should this be

	sort >expect_cookies.txt <<\EOF

? That is simpler since it avoids a pipe and means the reader doesn't have to look out for shell metacharacters like $ inside the text.

Bonus points if this kind of setup moves to inside the test (using <<-\EOF), which can make the test script easier to read.

Thanks and hope that helps, Jonathan