From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:16:27 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tests: set temp variables using 'env' in test function instead of subshell
Message-ID: <xmqqy5075f0k.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140318214536.GA10076@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:37:39PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
>> > index c9c426c..3e3f77b 100755
>> > --- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
>> > +++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
>> > @@ -974,24 +974,15 @@ test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'symlinked configuration' '
>> >  '
>> >
>> >  test_expect_success 'nonexistent configuration' '
>> > -	(
>> > -		GIT_CONFIG=doesnotexist &&
>> > -		export GIT_CONFIG &&
>> > -		test_must_fail git config --list &&
>> > -		test_must_fail git config test.xyzzy
>> > -	)
>> > +	test_must_fail env GIT_CONFIG=doesnotexist git config --list &&
>> > +	test_must_fail env GIT_CONFIG=doesnotexist git config test.xyzzy
>> >  '
>
> Isn't GIT_CONFIG here another way of saying:
>
>   test_must_fail git config -f doesnotexist --list
>
> Perhaps that is shorter and more readable still (and there are a few
> similar cases in this patch.

Surely, but are we assuming that "git config" correctly honors the
equivalence between GIT_CONFIG=file and -f file, or is that also
something we are testing in these tests?