Re: [PATCH 02/17] t0001 (mingw): do not expect a specific order of stdout/stderr
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jun 19, 2019, 11:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1906191329040.44@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1906191325130.44@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
Hi Eric,
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 2:19 AM Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote: > > > Am 19.06.19 um 01:12 schrieb Eric Sunshine: > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:24 AM Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget > > > > <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> printf ".git\nfatal: Needed a single revision\n" >expect && > > > >> - test_cmp expect output.txt > > > >> + sort <output.txt >output.sorted && > > > >> + test_cmp expect output.sorted > > > > > > > > It was quite surprising to see this sorting only 'output' but not > > > > 'expect'. I see now that 'output' is already "sorted" (in that sense), > > > > but it feels fragile. More robust would be to sort 'expect' as well: > > > > > > > > printf ".git\nfatal: Needed a single revision\n" | sort >expect && > > > > > > Following Dscho's recent objection elsewhere that tests tend to check > > > for much more than regressions, wouldn't it be logical to write these as > > > > > > grep -F .git" output.txt && > > > test_i18n_grep "Needed a single rev" output.txt > > > > > > without an 'expect' file at all? > > > > I considered suggesting that, as well, as being more obvious and less > > fragile (with the exception that "Needed a single rev" isn't currently > > localizable in builtin/rev-parse.c, so plain 'grep' instead of > > 'test_i18n_grep').
Interesting side note: I just realized that t6050-replace.sh does indeed contain
test_i18ngrep "Needed a single revision" err
so I wonder why that works.
If anybody has an answer, I'd be curious, but for now I want to focus on this here patch series instead.
Ciao, Dscho
Show 5 quoted lines
> Valid points all around, thank you so much! > > The next iteration will have the two `grep`s instead, > Dscho >