Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] t4113: put executable lines to test_expect_success

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Shuqi Liang <cheskaqiqi@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] t4113: put executable lines to test_expect_success
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 19:34:46 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTMBpau+G6bJSbYScOT38CU9BCi8RQ554jZYMUd+TheTQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <230208.865ycc1tqc.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 2:57 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this case the syntax you're trying to get working is something we
> usually try to avoid in either case, i.e. even if it involves an
> external process we usually do:
>
>         cat >out <<-\EOF
>         a
>         b
>         c
>         EOF
>
> Rather than:
>
>         echo "a
>         b
>         c" >out

The here-doc (<<-\EOF) form is definitely a good idea when the code is
part of an indented test body, whereas the multi-line double-quoted
string will be problematic since lines "b" and "c" will be indented
with TAB, which is undesirable here.

Even better for such a simple case would be:

    test_write_lines a b c >out &&

In fact, Junio made this suggestion in the form of a code snipped much
earlier in this thread.

> If you are using "echo" I saw another change of yours had e.g.:
>
>         echo x >f &&
>         echo y >>f &&
>         echo z >>f
>
> It's better to e.g. (assuming use of "echo", or other built-ins or
> commands):
>
>         {
>                 echo x &&
>                 echo y &&
>                 echo z
>         } >f

This is also an improvement, though test_write_lines would (again) be
even better for such a simple case:

    test_write_lines x y z >f &&