Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] t*: avoid using pipes

I have created the required changes and submitted a single file patch.
Also I tried my best to include each of the suggestions in that patch.


On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Prathamesh Chavan <pc44800@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.