On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 9:41 AM Derrick Stolee <sto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 1/25/2019 11:54 AM, Elijah Newren wrote: > > +test_expect_success '--combined-with-paths works with -z as well' ' > > + printf "0f9645804ebb04cc3eef91f799eb7fb54d70cefb\0::100644 100644 > > 100644 f00c965d8307308469e537302baa73048488f162 > > 088bd5d92c2a8e0203ca8e7e4c2a5c692f6ae3f7 > > 333b9c62519f285e1854830ade0fe1ef1d40ee1b > > RR\0file\twith\ttabs\0i\tam\ttabbed\0fickle\tnaming\0" >expect && > > I'm guessing that you use printf here because the > 'cat <<-\EOF' approach doesn't work with the special > tabs? Kudos for putting in the extra effort here for > the special formatting!
Yeah, I didn't know how to easily get NUL bytes in the stream without printf, and once I was using printf the EOF HEREDOC no longer had a useful purpose. In the first testcase, since there were only printable characters in the expected output, a HEREDOC worked well. I guess I could have just used printf for both testcases, but having the literal output shown where it's possible for a human to read it seemed like an advantage worth capitalizing on. If anyone feels strongly that I should use printf for both tests, I can switch them though. > The rest of the patch looks good. Thanks for taking a look!
