From: Andrew Chitester <andchi@fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 01:30:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [GSoC PATCH] t1420-lost-found.sh: use test_path_is_file for error logging
Message-ID: <87v7hcvqk1.fsf@fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4ip0n3mm.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Looks correct, but given that what these tests want to ensure is
> that underneath .git/lost-found there are only these two expected
> files, I have to wonder if the output of "ls" here is expected to be
> very stable.  I.e. if we rewrote the whole thing to something like
> ...
>
> 	ls .git/lost-found/*/* >actual &&
> 	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> 	.git/lost-found/commit/$(cat lost-commit)
> 	.git/lost-found/other/$(cat lost-other)
> 	EOF
> 	test_cmp expect actual
>
> ... would it be a more direct way to say that and is easier to
> understand to our readers.

Thanks for the feedback. This is an elegant solution that I did not
consider. Looking through the other tests, I am seeing this similar
pattern of comparing an expected result with the actual result. It is
much more deliberate and readable this way. I sent a v2, as a reply to
my original message, but I think I forgot to Cc you in that message. I'm
still figuring out the email workflow.