Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] t*: avoid using pipes




On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > Welcome to the Git community!
>>
>> >
>> > Actually, being a *micro* project, it should stay so. Not doing all of the
>> > changes would leave some tasks for other apprentices to get warm with our
>> > review process.
>>
>> right, so just pick one file.
>
> I also wonder if we really want all invocations of git to be marked up
> in this way. If the primary goal of the test is checking that a certain
> git command runs successfully and generates the expected output, then I
> think it is a good candidate for conversion.
>
> So in a hunk like this:
>
>    test_expect_success 'git commit-tree records the correct tree in a commit' '
>         commit0=$(echo NO | git commit-tree $P) &&
>   -     tree=$(git show --pretty=raw $commit0 |
>   -              sed -n -e "s/^tree //p" -e "/^author /q") &&
>   +     tree=$(git show --pretty=raw $commit0 >out &&
>   +     sed -n -e "s/^tree //p" -e "/^author /q" <out) &&
>         test "z$tree" = "z$P"
>
> we are interested in testing commit-tree, not "git show". Is it worth
> avoiding pipes there? I admit the cost to using the intermediate file is
> not huge there, but it feels more awkward and un-shell-like to me as a
> reader.
>
> -Peff

Thank you everyone, for reviewing my changes. And as said in the
reviews, I'll send a single patch file as my microproject, leaving the other
files as low hanging fruit for the others to look at. Also, I try to include as
many suggested improvements as possible and will also remember them for
my future patches.