Re: [PATCH v1] t6300: fix issues related to %(contents:size)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 31, 2020, 17:47 UTC
Message-ID: <20200731174709.GD843002@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200731174509.9199-1-alban.gruin@gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:45:09PM +0200, Alban Gruin wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> b6839fda68 (ref-filter: add support for %(contents:size), 2020-07-16)
> added a new format for ref-filter, and added a function to generate
> tests for this new feature in t6300.  Unfortunately, it tries to run
> `test_expect_sucess' instead of `test_expect_success', and writes
> $expect to `expected', but tries to read `expect'.  Those two issues
> were probably unnoticed because the script only printed errors, but did
> not crash.  This fixes these issues.

Oh, this just crossed with my mail. :)

Definitely fixes the issue, though I wonder:

Show 7 quoted lines

> -		echo $expect >expected
> -		test_expect_${4:-sucess} $PREREQ "basic atom: $1 contents:size" '
> +		echo $expect >expect
> +		test_expect_${4:-success} $PREREQ "basic atom: $1 contents:size" '
>  			git for-each-ref --format="%(contents:size)" "$ref" >actual &&
>  			test_cmp expect actual
>  		'

Should we instead switch the test_cmp to look at "expected" to be consistent with the rest of the tests in this file?

-Peff