Re: [PATCH] t7406: correct test case for submodule-update initial population

> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:49:48PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> * The syntax of the here-doc was wrong, such that the entire test was
>>   sucked into the here-doc, which is why the test succeeded successfully.
>
> As opposed to succeeding unsuccessfully? :)
>
>> * The variable $submodulesha1 was not expanded as it was inside a single
>>   quoted string. Use double quote to expand the variable.
>
> Hmm. Sort of. It was inside a non-interpolating here-doc inside a
> single-quoted string which was being eval'd. The second half is fine
> (the eval adds an extra layer of evaluation).
>
> Your fix:
>
>> +     cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
>> +     Execution of '\'"false $submodulesha1"\'' failed in submodule path '\''submodule'\''
>> +     EOF
>
> _does_ work, but it does so because it's evaluating $submodulesha1 in
> the shell snippet and handing the result off to test_expect_success to
> eval. So it would have problems if:
>
>   - that variable contained "\nEOF\n" itself ;)
>
>   - the variable was modified inside the shell snippet.
>
> Neither of those is true, but I think:
>
>   cat >expect <<-EOF &&
>   Execution of '\''false $submodulesha1'\'' failed in ...
>   EOF
>
> is safer and less surprising. The single-quote handling is unfortunate and
> ugly, but necessary to get them into the shell snippet in the first
> place. I notice the others tests in this script set up the expect file
> outside of a block. You could also do something like:
>
>   sq=\'
>   test_expect_success '...' '
>         cat >expect <<-EOF
>         Execution of ${sq}false $submodulesha1${sq} ...
>   '
>
> but I'm not sure if that is any more readable.
>