On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 08:51:43AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:

> > Hmm. Using "!test_cmp" seems weird to me, just because it would falsely
> > claim success if something else unexpected changes. Our usual method for
> > making sure some particular output does not appear is "test_i18ngrep"
> > with a liberal pattern.
> 
> and I advanced the liberal a bit more. ;)
> So maybe we'd be looking that no 'detached HEAD' occurs?
> 
>     test_i18ngrep ! "'detached HEAD'" actual

I was thinking maybe "advice:" to look for any advice, but at this point
we are guessing about what might change in the future.

> I think testing that we do not give out advice (i.e. behave the same as if
> not giving out advice) is best tested to just compare the output to
> the output of "git -c advice.detachedHead=false ...", which is what I do here.
> This seems to be future proof to me no matter how we reword the advice or
> the actual message on checkout?

Yeah, I guess that is reasonable. I thought at first you were comparing
more distinct commands, but if only the one thing is changing, that
seems reasonable.

You may also want to grab stderr, too (I'm actually surprised advice
goes to stdout and not stderr, and that is something that seems
plausible to change in the future).

-Peff
--
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

Reply via email to