Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> On 09/17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> The other
>> effort implicitly depends on the expected output is kept sorted, but
>> this one is more explicit---I tend to prefer this approach as tools
>> and automation is easier to maintain than having to remember that
>> the source must be sorted.
>
> I'm happy going with either patch, but if we want to go with mine, I'd
> like to make sure Todd is credited appropriately, as he sent a very
> similar patch first. Not sure what the appropriate way here is
> though?
Thanks for asking. Credit is a subject that is dear to my heart.
You can for example use
Reported-by: Todd Zullinger <t...@pobox.com>
to credit him for the patch and analysis that appears to have helped
with reviews (and to signal that this fixes the bug he reported).
[...]
>>> --- a/t/t5551-http-fetch-smart.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t5551-http-fetch-smart.sh
>>> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ test_expect_success 'dumb clone via http-backend
>>> respects namespace' '
>>> cat >cookies.txt <<EOF
>>> 127.0.0.1 FALSE /smart_cookies/ FALSE 0 othername
>>> othervalue
>>> EOF
>>> -cat >expect_cookies.txt <<EOF
>>> +cat <<EOF | sort >expect_cookies.txt
Should this be
sort >expect_cookies.txt <<\EOF
? That is simpler since it avoids a pipe and means the reader doesn't
have to look out for shell metacharacters like $ inside the text.
Bonus points if this kind of setup moves to inside the test (using
<<-\EOF), which can make the test script easier to read.
Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan
