Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] t7508: test git status -v

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
>> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
>>> ---
>>>  t/t7508-status.sh | 6 ++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/t/t7508-status.sh b/t/t7508-status.sh
>>> index 8ed5788..4989e98 100755
>>> --- a/t/t7508-status.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t7508-status.sh
>>> @@ -133,6 +133,12 @@ test_expect_success 'status with status.displayCommentPrefix=false' '
>>>  	test_i18ncmp expect output
>>>  '
>>>  
>>> +test_expect_success 'status -v' '
>>> +	git diff --cached >>expect &&
>>
>> This makes the test rely on the previous one succeeding.  Do we
>> care, or is reproducing what ought to be in 'expect' at this step
>> too expensive?
> 
> Ahh, OK.  The way the existing tests prepare 'expect' is "by hand".
> 
> So I think what is wrong with this new test is not that relies on
> the current contents of 'expect', but that it modifies it (imagine
> being a merge/patch monkey who has to accept this change while a
> change from somebody else that wants to add another test that relies
> on the original 'expect' intact and then have to scratch his or her
> head when the two topics are merged, wondering why the latter test
> starts failing).
> 
> Perhaps
> 
> 	( cat expect && git diff --cached ) >expect-with-v &&
>         git status -v >actual &&
>         test_cmp expect-with-v actual
> 
> or something?