> I know it is tempting to write a helper function like this that > looks overly generic, but I've seen that we end up either tests that > are too hard to modify (because such helpers are not flexible enough) > or we end up adding more helpers to cover different cases, and > either case the presense of the helper does not help the resulting > tests easier to read or modify. I understand... But in this case, most of the tests would look almost the same and there will be a lot of code duplication, since I'm testing both output formats (not in this patch, but in 5/5). > If this were "test repo-info for ref.format only" that takes a > single parameter (format), that might have been more palatable, but > I'll withhold my judgement until we have tests to handle more keys > in later steps. I have already done objects.format here, which follows the same structure. > Also, unless we capture both standard output (in actual) and > standard error (in actual_err) from the command being tested, and > instead are interested in testing only what comes out of the error > stream, it is more common to use the usual "expect vs actual". Ok. Should I send a v11 or is it ok to keep it like this by now? Thanks!
