Hi,
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> On 20 July 2016 at 17:47, Jeff Hostetler <g...@jeffhostetler.com> wrote:
> > On 07/20/2016 11:30 AM, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> >> W dniu 2016-07-20 o 00:10, Jeff Hostetler pisze:
> >>>
> >>> +test_expect_success pre_initial_commit_0 '
> >>> + printf "## branch: (initial) master\n" >expected &&
> >>> + printf "?? actual\n" >>expected &&
> >>> + printf "?? dir1/\n" >>expected &&
> >>> + printf "?? expected\n" >>expected &&
> >>> + printf "?? file_x\n" >>expected &&
> >>> + printf "?? file_y\n" >>expected &&
> >>> + printf "?? file_z\n" >>expected &&
> >>
> >> Why not use heredoc syntax (cat <<\EOF), or prepare a file
> >> with expected output in the testsuite?
> >
> > The tests involving renames needed to embed a tab character
> > in the output and hiding a tab character in a heredoc seemed
> > error prone. So to be consistent I made them all printf-style.
>
> Ah, so that's the case for series of printf. I think in some other
> cases the Git testsuite simply uses HT variable for the TAB
> character.
Yeah, it would be more pleasant to read
echo >expected <<-EOF
## branch: (initial) master
?? actual
?? dir1/
?? expected
?? file_x
?? file_y
?? file_z
EOF
And it is also easy to use $HT in there (unless you want to use <<-\EOF).
Actually, even if you want to use \EOF, you can easily use `sed` to
expand, say, "Q" to tabs, such as was done here:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/v2.9.2/t/t4213-log-tabexpand.sh#L88-L92
Ciao,
Dscho
