On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:16:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kevin Daudt <m...@ikke.info> writes:
> > Many tests need to store data in a file, and repeat the same pattern to
> > refer to that path:
> > "$TEST_DATA"/t5100/
> That obviously is a typo of
> It is a good change, even though I would have chosen a name
> that is a bit more descriptive than "$DATA".
The name "$DATA" was my suggestion. I was shooting for something short
since this is used a lot and is really a script-local variable (I'd have
kept it lowercase to indicate that, but maybe that is just me).
Something like "$root" would also work. I dunno.
> > - test_cmp "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t5100/msg$mo msg$mo &&
> > - test_cmp "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t5100/patch$mo patch$mo &&
> > - test_cmp "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t5100/info$mo info$mo
> > + test_cmp "$DATA"/msg$mo msg$mo &&
> > + test_cmp "$DATA"/patch$mo patch$mo &&
> > + test_cmp "$DATA"/info$mo info$mo
> make me wonder why we don't quote the whole thing, i.e.
> test_cmp "$TEST_DATA/info$mo" "info$mo"
> as leaving $mo part unquoted forces reader to wonder if it is our
> deliberate attempt to allow shell $IFS in $mo and have the argument
> split when that happens, which can be avoided if we quoted more
> Perhaps we'd leave that as a low-hanging fruit for future people.
Yeah, I agree that quoting the whole thing makes it more obvious (though
I guess quoting the second info$mo does add two characters).