From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:48:35 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] t1006: fix %(rest) test for object names with whitespace Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Victoria Dye writes: >>> - # FIXME: %(rest) is incompatible with object names that include whitespace, >>> - # e.g. HEAD:path/to/a/file with spaces. Use the resolved OID as input to >>> - # test this instead of the raw object name. >>> - if echo "$object_name" | grep -q " "; then >>> - test_rest=test_expect_failure >>> - else >>> - test_rest=test_expect_success >>> - fi >>> - >>> - $test_rest '--batch-check with %(rest)' ' >>> + # Use the resolved OID so %(rest) parsing is independent of whitespace >>> + # in object names (e.g. HEAD:path with spaces). >>> + test_expect_success '--batch-check with %(rest)' ' >>> echo "$type this is some extra content" >expect && >>> - echo "$object_name this is some extra content" | >>> + echo "$oid this is some extra content" | >> >> ... I somehow doubt that this is what 9fd38038 (t1006: update >> 'run_tests' to test generic object specifiers, 2025-06-02) meant by >> that comment. > > That FIXME was intended to call out the behavior of %(rest) in cat-file > itself as something that we may eventually want to fix. The comment is > only here because this test happens to demonstrate that behavior. For > that reason, I'm also not sure I see the value of this patch; it's > removing some visibility to a quirk of cat-file without fixing the > underlying issue. I agree that fixing underlying issue would be a much more valuable outcome of resolving that FIXME comment, but isn't the approach to give $object_name fundamentally incompatible with %(rest), making the issue something %(rest) implementation cannot "fix", is it? That is a part of the reason why I said I am dubious about the FIXME comment in my comment. Thanks.