> Le 27 juil. 2025 à 18:02, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 2:02 PM Lucas Seiki Oshiro
> <lucasseikioshiro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/t/t1900-repo.sh b/t/t1900-repo.sh
>> @@ -20,11 +20,20 @@ test_repo_info () {
>> + test_expect_success "null-terminated: $label" '
>> + test_when_finished "rm -rf repo" &&
>> + eval "$init_command" &&
>> + echo "$expected_value" | lf_to_nul >expected &&
>
> Simpler:
>
> printf "$expected_value\0" >expected &&
(Below as well): the shell linter I use does prefer to see
printf %s\\0 "$var"
to avoid issues with the variable containing format specifiers.
(Backslash has to be quoted in double-quotes, too, I think? So I left out the quotes here.)
>
>> + git -C repo repo info --format=nul "$key" >output &&
>> + tail -n 1 output >actual &&
>> + test_cmp expected actual
>> + '
>
> How confident are we that `tail -n 1 output >actual` is going to
> perform as expected across platforms and versions of those platforms?
> It feels awfully fragile to me. Why slice and dice the output anyhow
> rather than merely crafting the correct expected output in the first
> place and comparing that directly against the actual output? In other
> words, something like this:
>
> printf "$key\n$expected_value\0" >expect &&
> git -C repo repo info --format=nul "$key" >actual &&
> test_cmp_bin expect actual
