From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:33:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow git-diff exit with codes similar to diff(1)
Message-ID: <81b0412b0703140933v5c684aa9g1f61d61e502c6783@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v1wjrby4w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 3/14/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> > -     return run_diff_files_cmd(&rev, argc, argv);
> > +     result = run_diff_files_cmd(&rev, argc, argv);
> > +     return rev.diffopt.diff_exit_code ? rev.diffopt.exit_code: result;
> >  }
>
> Yuck.  Let's call the former "exit_with_status" (meaning, the
> caller instructed us to do that) and the latter "has_changes".

I like "exit_with_status". But has_changes looks confusing
good near return value of run_diff_files_cmd, which "has"
nothing. Or do you mean to highlight this "difference"?

> > +test_expect_failure 'git diff-index --cached HEAD^' '
> > +     echo text >>b &&
> > +     echo 3 >c &&
> > +     git add . &&
> > +     git diff-index --exit-code --cached HEAD^
> > +'
>
> Please:
>
>         test_expect_success '...
>                 echo ... &&
>                 git add . &&
>                 ! git diff-index ...
>         '
>
> I recall somebody on the list had a buggy shell that cannot
> handle "a && ! b" and tweaked a few tests to work around it.
> In that case...
>
>         echo ... &&
>         git add . &&
>         {
>                 git diff-index ...; test $? != 0
>         }

Confused. What's wrong with test_expect_failure which
does not need any of the both ugly constructions?
Hmm... Do you mean: "we expect successful
operation with exit code 1"? I like this, easier to follow.
Will do.

> > +test_expect_failure 'git diff-files' '
> > +     echo 3 >>c &&
> > +     git diff-files --exit-code
> > +'
>
> Likewise

Yep, I'll change this too.

> > +git update-index c || error "update-index failed"
>
> Please do not have command outside test_expect without good
> reason.

Well, it does not actually belongs to the test logic
(as well as the echo's, one may notice).