Re: [PATCH] apply: fix new-style empty context line triggering incomplete-line check

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2026, 16:43 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTx3Gho+uYd9+0SjE+x9GA6VMNu78riUZ=h5_QW2vUHNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALnO6CDNwa8Ez4Ug0f8zNyxF1n3C_j8mLRbH7wChVioNoC5QVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 12:36 PM D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 2:48 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> > >>  test_expect_success 'incomplete context line (not an error)' '
> > >>         (test_write_lines 1 2 3 4 5 && printf 6) >sample-i &&
> > >>         (test_write_lines 1 2 3 0 5 && printf 6) >sample2-i &&
> > >
> > > Perhaps the parentheses in the new test were copied from some existing
> > > test, such as this, which already used them for a legitimate reason?
> >
> > Yes, the existing one was concatenating output from two commands run
> > in a row into a single redirection, so (grouping of the commands) in
> > parentheses were justifiable.
> >
> > The new one does not have such a justification.  Thanks for
> > noticing.
>
> I think braces { test_writes lines … && printf … ; } would have
> sufficed for the second example, and might be cheaper (avoiding the
> extra process for the subshell, which we've been told is especially
> expensive for Windows).

No doubt. I considered making the exact same comment, however, this is existing code which Junio's patch was not touching, so the comment would not have been directly applicable except possibly as a #leftoverbits for someone to tackle as a mini-project or some such, so I opted against saying anything about it.