From: jyotish kumar Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 04:56:56 GMT Subject: Re: [Discussion] t1006: testing %(rest) with object names containing whitespace Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Hi Jeff and Junio, Thanks for the clarification. I understand that the limitation is intentional and that using the resolved object ID would not test how %(rest) behaves with the original object name. I'd be happy to volunteer to clean up the test in t/t1006-cat-file.sh, so that it handles this known limitation appropriately and removes the obsolete FIXME. I'll work on the test change and send a patch for review. Thanks, Jyotish On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 9:11 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Jeff King writes: > > > So IMHO everything is working as designed, and there is nothing to fix > > in the code. But using test_expect_failure seems weird to me. It avoids > > the test suite announcing a failure, but it is not really a breakage to > > be fixed. A test with %(rest) and an object name with space should > > probably just be skipped. We _could_ run just those cases with the > > resolved id, but the point of that test is checking how %(rest) works > > with the name, so I don't know that it would be testing anything useful. > > Yup, thanks for finding old (but not so old) discussion. We really > should have fixed the test including the fixme comment as we knew > already back then that there was nothing to fix. > > Perhaps somebody involved in this discussion thread can volunteer to > do so this time?