From: Yushin Tian <a3205153416@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 04:16:20 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] t2203: avoid masking exit codes in git status
Message-ID: <CA+rU_o4TYi-9dTgReP6=+15SZ--gyZg7OK2rn=Rqji5sQ5P-bg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy0lw5cmq.fsf@gitster.g>

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

>Looking at other parts of this patch makes me wonder if we can get
>away by filtering lines that match "^?" out, instead of explicitly
>naming 'actual' and 'tmp'.  It seems that the entire t2203 file does
>not care about untraacked files at all (in other words, there is no
>"expect" file that expects a line with '^?' in it), so rewriting the
>above (and everything that this patch touches) to use something like
>
>       git status --porcelain -uno >actual
>
>makes the intent clear (i.e., we do not care about untracked files)
>and simpler (i.e., we do not need "grep -v" to filter), wouldn't it?

You are right. Using `-uno` is much simpler and semantically closer to
what the tests are checking (changes in the index, not untracked files).
It also naturally avoids the exit code masking issue since the pipe is removed.

I have checked t2203 and confirmed that no test cases expect untracked
files in their output.

I will send a v2 patch shortly with this change, and I'll also add the [gsoc]
prefix which I missed in the first iteration.

Thanks for you suggestion!

>
> Tian Yuchen <a3205153416@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >  test_expect_success 'git status' '
> > -     git status --porcelain | grep -v actual >actual &&
> > +     git status --porcelain >tmp &&
> > +     grep -v -e actual -e tmp tmp >actual &&
>
> Looking at other parts of this patch makes me wonder if we can get
> away by filtering lines that match "^?" out, instead of explicitly
> naming 'actual' and 'tmp'.  It seems that the entire t2203 file does
> not care about untraacked files at all (in other words, there is no
> "expect" file that expects a line with '^?' in it), so rewriting the
> above (and everything that this patch touches) to use something like
>
>         git status --porcelain -uno >actual
>
> makes the intent clear (i.e., we do not care about untracked files)
> and simpler (i.e., we do not need "grep -v" to filter), wouldn't it?
>
> >       cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> >       DA 1.t
> >       A  elif
> > @@ -26,7 +27,8 @@ test_expect_success 'git status' '
> >  '
> >
> >  test_expect_success 'git status with porcelain v2' '
> > -     git status --porcelain=v2 | grep -v "^?" >actual &&
> > +     git status --porcelain=v2 >tmp &&
> > +     grep -v "^?" tmp >actual &&
> >       nam1=$(echo 1 | git hash-object --stdin) &&
> >       nam2=$(git hash-object elif) &&
> >       cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> > @@ -171,17 +173,20 @@ test_expect_success 'rename detection finds the right names' '
> >               mv first third &&
> >               git add -N third &&
> >
> > -             git status | grep -v "^?" >actual.1 &&
> > +             git status >tmp &&
> > +             grep -v "^?" tmp >actual.1 &&
> >               test_grep "renamed: *first -> third" actual.1 &&
> >
> > -             git status --porcelain | grep -v "^?" >actual.2 &&
> > +             git status --porcelain >tmp &&
> > +             grep -v "^?" tmp >actual.2 &&
> >               cat >expected.2 <<-\EOF &&
> >                R first -> third
> >               EOF
> >               test_cmp expected.2 actual.2 &&
> >
> >               hash=$(git hash-object third) &&
> > -             git status --porcelain=v2 | grep -v "^?" >actual.3 &&
> > +             git status --porcelain=v2 >tmp &&
> > +             grep -v "^?" tmp >actual.3 &&
> >               cat >expected.3 <<-EOF &&
> >               2 .R N... 100644 100644 100644 $hash $hash R100 third   first
> >               EOF
> > @@ -211,11 +216,13 @@ test_expect_success 'double rename detection in status' '
> >               mv second third &&
> >               git add -N third &&
> >
> > -             git status | grep -v "^?" >actual.1 &&
> > +             git status >tmp &&
> > +             grep -v "^?" tmp >actual.1 &&
> >               test_grep "renamed: *first -> second" actual.1 &&
> >               test_grep "renamed: *second -> third" actual.1 &&
> >
> > -             git status --porcelain | grep -v "^?" >actual.2 &&
> > +             git status --porcelain >tmp &&
> > +             grep -v "^?" tmp >actual.2 &&
> >               cat >expected.2 <<-\EOF &&
> >               R  first -> second
> >                R second -> third
> > @@ -223,7 +230,8 @@ test_expect_success 'double rename detection in status' '
> >               test_cmp expected.2 actual.2 &&
> >
> >               hash=$(git hash-object third) &&
> > -             git status --porcelain=v2 | grep -v "^?" >actual.3 &&
> > +             git status --porcelain=v2 >tmp &&
> > +             grep -v "^?" tmp >actual.3 &&
> >               cat >expected.3 <<-EOF &&
> >               2 R. N... 100644 100644 100644 $hash $hash R100 second  first
> >               2 .R N... 100644 100644 100644 $hash $hash R100 third   second
> >
> > base-commit: 7264e61d87e58b9d0f5e6424c47c11e9657dfb75