On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 07:44:06PM +0100, Adam Spiers wrote:
> > Is it just that you are dropping the '\' in all of the here-docs because
> > they are not needed?
> Hmm, I think I previously misunderstood the point of the \\ due to
> never seeing that syntax before (since my Perl background taught me to
> write <<'EOF' instead). I noticed that the tests all passed without
> it, and mistakenly assumed it had become unnecessary due to the
OK. You can write 'EOF' in the shell, too, but we tend not to in this
project (and you can write \EOF in perl, but I agree that it is much
less common in perl code I have seen).
Looking at it again, it is actually quite subtle what is going on. We
wrap the outer test_expect_* calls in double-quotes so that the inner
ones can use single-quotes easily. But that means that technically the
contents of the here-doc _are_ interpolated. But not at test run-time,
but rather at the call to test_expect_*. And that is why we nee to use
"\\" instead of "\". So I think anybody trying to tweak these tests
using shell metacharacters is in for a surprise either way. I'm not sure
it is worth worrying about, though, as handling it would probably make
the existing tests less readable.
> > Also, why is this one not converted into a check_sub... invocation?
> Because it was much further down in that file so I didn't notice it
> during the refactoring ;-)
> I've also noticed I can use test_must_fail instead of introducing
Good catch. I didn't notice that, but it definitely makes sense to reuse
> So I'll have to re-roll 4--6 again. Presumably I can just reply to
> [PATCH v2 4/6] with modified v3 versions without having to resend
> the first three in the series, which haven't changed.
It all looks sane to me. Thanks again.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html