Re: [PATCH 3/4] t7401: ensure uniformity in the '--for-status' test

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>,
	Shourya Shukla <shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, christian.couder@gmail.com,
	kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de,
	liu.denton@gmail.com, Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] t7401: ensure uniformity in the '--for-status' test
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:26:18 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200805222618.GB30420@syl.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd044n31u.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 03:25:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> >>  test_expect_success '--for-status' "
> >>  	git submodule summary --for-status HEAD^ >actual &&
> >> -	test_i18ncmp actual - <<EOF
> >> +	cat >expected <<-EOF &&
> >>  * sm1 $head6...0000000:
> >>
> >>  * sm2 0000000...$head7 (2):
> >>    > Add foo9
> >>
> >>  EOF
> >> +	test_i18ncmp expected actual
> >>  "
> >
> > I think that this is on the right track, but you can use a '<<-\EOF'
> > here instead of '<<-EOF' to make the tabulation a little more flexible.
>
> You are correct that the patch could have indented the here-doc and
> the line with EOF with a tab to make it easier to read.
>
> The leading '-' after '<<' is what controls tabulation, so <<-EOF as
> written in the patch is good enough; you do not want to quote it
> further, because $head6 wants to be interpolated.

Ah, I never actually knew the difference between those two (and
apparently had been too lazy to look it up myself). Thanks for the
clarification.

Thanks,
Taylor