Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] log: add "--no-show-signature" command line option

From: Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@gmail.com>
Date: May 26, 2016, 16:42 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+DCAeRRunqgbbbpDDK6gA-cXYrPtkmAuX-ERvtDtXsD2Z=xkw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160526163241.GC18210@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

Thanks for your input.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:36:47PM +0530, Mehul Jain wrote:
>> diff --git a/t/t4202-log.sh b/t/t4202-log.sh
>> index 36be9a1..ea24259 100755
>> --- a/t/t4202-log.sh
>> +++ b/t/t4202-log.sh
>> @@ -901,6 +901,13 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'log.showsignature=true behaves like --show-signature' '
>>       test_i18ngrep "gpg: Good signature" actual
>>  '
>>
>> +test_expect_success GPG '--no-show-signature overrides log.showsignature=true' '
>> +     git config log.showsignature true &&
>> +     git log -1 --no-show-signature signed >actual &&
>> +     test "$(test_i18ngrep "gpg: Signature made" actual)" = "" &&
>> +     test "$(test_i18ngrep "gpg: Good signature" actual)" = ""
>> +'
>
> Perhaps it would be more robust to simply grep for "gpg:". We should not
> be seeing any gpg-related lines in the output. It probably isn't that
> big a deal in practice, though. If the output from gpg changes, this
> test could report a false success, but all of the other nearby tests
> would show a breakage, so somebody would probably notice.

That's a very good point. I will make the changes accordingly.

Thanks, Mehul