gits...@pobox.com wrote on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:28 -0700:
> Pete Wyckoff <p...@padd.com> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/t/t9814-git-p4-rename.sh b/t/t9814-git-p4-rename.sh
> > index 84fffb3..8be74b6 100755
> > --- a/t/t9814-git-p4-rename.sh
> > +++ b/t/t9814-git-p4-rename.sh
> > @@ -77,16 +77,16 @@ test_expect_success 'detect renames' '
> > git commit -a -m "Rename file1 to file4" &&
> > git diff-tree -r -M HEAD &&
> > git p4 submit &&
> > - p4 filelog //depot/file4 &&
> > - p4 filelog //depot/file4 | test_must_fail grep -q "branch from"
> > &&
> > + p4 filelog //depot/file4 | tee filelog &&
> > + ! grep -q " from //depot" filelog &&
>
> I am not a huge fan of using "tee" in our test scripts, especially
> as it means piping output of another command whose output (and
> presumably the behaviour) we care about, hiding its exit status.
>
> Fixing the incorrect use of piping to "test_must_fail grep" is a
> good change, but is there anything wrong to do the above like this?
>
> p4 filelog //depot/file4 >filelog &&
> ! grep -q " from //depot" filelog &&
I'd started growing fond of "tee" as it shows all the
output, and isolates the grep as a separate step. Much
easier to see the bad output when a test fails.
I'll switch around to your approach, adding a "cat filelog" line
for interesting cases.
-- Pete
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
