On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 09:45:11AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <m...@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > ...' block with your suggestion above. It's tempting to introduce it as:
> >
> > expect_haves() {
> > printf "%s .have\n" $(git rev-parse -- $@)
> > }
> >
> > And call it as:
> >
> > expect_haves one three two >expect
> >
> > But I'm not sure whether I think that this is better or worse than
> > writing it twice inline.
>
> If the expected pattern is expected to stay to be just a sequence of
> "<oid> .have" and nothing else for the foreseeable future, I think
> it is a good idea to introduce such a helper function. Spelling it
> out at the use site, e.g.
>
> printf "%s .have\n" $(git rev-parse a b c) >expect
>
> will become cumbersome once the set of objects you need to show
> starts growing.
That's a good reason, and I hadn't thought of it.
> expect_haves a b c >expect
>
> would be shorter, of course. And as long as we expect to have ONLY
> "<oid> .have" lines and nothing else, there is no downside that the
> details of the format is hidden away inside the helper.
Yeah, I don't expect this to to change much at all, so I think that
'expect_haves()' is good.
Thanks,
Taylor
