Stefan Beller <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: >> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> +test_trace() { >>> + local expected="$1" >> >> Style: "test_trace () {" is how we start a shell function. >> Portability: we do not use "local". >> >>> + shift >>> + GIT_TRACE=1 test-run-command "$@" run-command true 2>&1 >/dev/null | \ >>> + sed 's/.* run_command: //' >actual && >>> + echo "$expected true" >expected && >>> + test_cmp expected actual >> >> Consistency: everybody else in the test script contrasts "actual" vs >> "expect" (they happen to be of the same length ;-); don't say >> expectED just to be different. > > 3491 entries in the t/ directory disagree with your imagination of > consistency. ;)
Heh. I thought it was clear enough from the context that I was talking about matching the remainder of the same test script; I do not have time time to count 'test_cmp expected' in all others in t/ ;-) > But I agree that we want to go for consistency, and most likely it's > best to go for 'expect'. It is unclear if you are volunteering, but do not change things for the sake of making them consistent. Not adding new ones and fixing existing ones when they need to change anyway for some other reason is the way to do this without unnecessary code churn.
