From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:20:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] t7508: test git status -v
Message-ID: <xmqqr3t5aicu.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <4979bf9de04197c1cd0d4a6af1348b45d4b0894c.1425390756.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net>

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
> ---
>  t/t7508-status.sh | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t7508-status.sh b/t/t7508-status.sh
> index 8ed5788..4989e98 100755
> --- a/t/t7508-status.sh
> +++ b/t/t7508-status.sh
> @@ -133,6 +133,12 @@ test_expect_success 'status with status.displayCommentPrefix=false' '
>  	test_i18ncmp expect output
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'status -v' '
> +	git diff --cached >>expect &&

This makes the test rely on the previous one succeeding.  Do we
care, or is reproducing what ought to be in 'expect' at this step
too expensive?

> +	git status -v >output &&
> +	test_cmp expect output
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'setup fake editor' '
>  	cat >.git/editor <<-\EOF &&
>  	#! /bin/sh