Re: [PATCH] pretty: fix ref filtering for %(decorate) formats

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@gmail.com> writes:

> Mark pretty formats containing "%(decorate" as requiring decoration in
> userformat_find_requirements(), same as "%d" and "%D".

Ah, of course.  The patch makes sense.

> diff --git a/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh b/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh
> index 16626e4fe9..5aabc9f7d8 100755
> --- a/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh
> +++ b/t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh
> @@ -590,9 +590,9 @@ test_expect_success 'pretty format %decorate' '
>  	git log --format="%(decorate:prefix=,suffix=)" -1 >actual2 &&
>  	test_cmp expect2 actual2 &&
>  
> -	echo "[ HEAD -> foo; tag: bar; qux ]" >expect3 &&
> -	git log --format="%(decorate:prefix=[ ,suffix= ],separator=%x3B )" \
> -		-1 >actual3 &&
> +	echo "[ bar; qux; foo ]" >expect3 &&
> +	git log --format="%(decorate:prefix=[ ,suffix= ],separator=%x3B ,tag=)" \
> +		--decorate-refs=refs/ -1 >actual3 &&
>  	test_cmp expect3 actual3 &&

The original test shares the same, but is the order of multiple
decorations expected to be stable?  I feel a bit uneasy to see a
test that insists multiple things come out in a hardcoded order.

It is not making anything _worse_, so let's take the patch as-is.

Thanks.

>  	# Try with a typo (in "separator"), in which case the placeholder should