Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] t/t6300: drop magic filtering

[Kousik Sanagavarapu <five231003@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 08:52:17AM +0200, Christian Hesse wrote:
> From: Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de>
> 
> Now that we ran a trustdb check forcibly it does no longer pollute the
> output. Filtering is no longer required...

s/forcibly/forcibly, 

s/it does no longer pollute/it no longer pollutes

Also, maybe instead of "... the output.",

	"...the output when we encounter a signature check and hence filtering is no
	longer required."

or along similar lines.

> Signed-off-by: Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de>
> ---
>  t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
> index 5b434ab451..aa3c7c03c4 100755
> --- a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
> +++ b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
> @@ -1763,10 +1763,7 @@ test_expect_success GPGSSH 'setup for signature atom using ssh' '
>  '
>  
>  test_expect_success GPG2 'bare signature atom' '
> -	git verify-commit first-signed 2>out.raw &&
> -	grep -Ev "checking the trustdb|PGP trust model" out.raw >out &&
> -	head -3 out >expect &&
> -	tail -1 out >>expect &&
> +	git verify-commit first-signed 2>expect &&
>  	echo  >>expect &&
>  	git for-each-ref refs/tags/first-signed \
>  		--format="%(signature)" >actual &&
> -- 
> 2.42.0

The code looks really clean now, wow. Although I'm curious why both the changes
weren't in a single commit. Is it because 1/2 is applicable generally and not
only to this specific test?

Thanks