Stefan Beller writes:
>> + if (!item)
>> + ; /* not among entries being checked */
>> + else {
>> + if (strcmp((const char *)item->util, buf.buf)) {
>> + printf("expected '%s', got '%s'\n",
>> +
Stefan Beller writes:
>> + *colon = '\0';
>> + item = string_list_lookup(expect, buf.buf);
>> + *colon = ':';
>
> I have been staring at this for a good couple of minutes and wondered if this
> low level string manipulation is really the best way to do it
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> instead of filtering afterwards, i.e. each strbuf_add is guarded by
>> an
>>
>> if (is_interesting_output(...))
>> strbuf_add(...)
>
> That's a good approach.
>
> The implementation gets a bit trickier
Stefan Beller writes:
> instead of filtering afterwards, i.e. each strbuf_add is guarded by
> an
>
> if (is_interesting_output(...))
> strbuf_add(...)
That's a good approach.
The implementation gets a bit trickier than the previous one, but it
would look like this. Discard 2/3 and
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> [...]
>> But the only thing this test cares about is if "quiet: 3" is in the
>> output. We should be able to write the above 18 lines with just
>> four lines, like this:
>>
>>
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Existing tests in t0040 follow a rather verbose pattern:
>
> cat >expect <<\EOF
> boolean: 0
> integer: 0
> magnitude: 0
> timestamp: 0
> string: (not set)
> abbrev: 7
> verbose:
Existing tests in t0040 follow a rather verbose pattern:
cat >expect <<\EOF
boolean: 0
integer: 0
magnitude: 0
timestamp: 0
string: (not set)
abbrev: 7
verbose: 0
quiet: 3
dry run: no
file: (not set)
EO
7 matches
Mail list logo
