From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 11:09:45 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add: check color.ui for interactive add
Message-ID: <a76a91a0-cefe-807f-f1f6-4a277d724630@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <pull.1541.v2.git.1686061219078.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

Hi Stolee

Hi Stolee

Thanks for fixing this

On 06/06/2023 15:20, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>
 >
>       -+	*** Commands ***
>       -+	  1: [s]tatus	  2: [u]pdate	  3: [r]evert	  4: [a]dd untracked
>       -+	  5: [p]atch	  6: [d]iff	  7: [q]uit	  8: [h]elp
>       -+	What now> status        - show paths with changes
>       -+	update        - add working tree state to the staged set of changes
>       -+	revert        - revert staged set of changes back to the HEAD version
>       -+	patch         - pick hunks and update selectively
>       -+	diff          - view diff between HEAD and index
>       -+	add untracked - add contents of untracked files to the staged set of changes
>       -+	*** Commands ***
>       -+	  1: [s]tatus	  2: [u]pdate	  3: [r]evert	  4: [a]dd untracked
>       -+	  5: [p]atch	  6: [d]iff	  7: [q]uit	  8: [h]elp
>       -+	What now> Bye.
>       -+	EOF
>       -+	test_cmp expect actual
>       ++	test_cmp actual.raw actual
>        +'

I know Junio suggested this change, but I'm in two minds as to whether 
it is a good idea. The reason is that we're no-longer testing that we 
add "[]" around the text that would have been highlighted if color was 
enabled. That is with --color we print "1: status" with the "s" 
highlighted rather than "1: [s]tatus". So while the revised patch tests 
there is no color in the output, it does not test that we print the 
output correctly in that case.

Best Wishes

Phillip