Re: [PATCH v6 1/1] userdiff: extend Bash pattern to cover more shell function forms

[MOUMITA DHAR <dhar61595@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 00:20, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Moumita <dhar61595@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/t/t4018/bash-posix-style-multiline-function b/t/t4018/bash-posix-style-multiline-function
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..cc8727cbcd
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/t/t4018/bash-posix-style-multiline-function
> > @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> > +RIGHT() \
> > +{
> > +    ChangeMe
> > +}
>
> Not a review, but I am curious what this test is about.  Is it to
> ensure that the pattern does not get confused with the backslash
> that does not have to be (but it would not hurt to have one) there?
>
> IOW, does
>
>         RIGHT()
>         {
>                 ChangeMe
>         }
>
> get processed just fine, and the above is to check the corner case
> where an unusual "\" on the same line as RIGHT does not break the
> funcline identification?
>
> Thanks.

I realise this test is redundant , The goal of my test was to ensure
that the entire function header line is correctly captured, even when
the opening brace is placed on the next line using a backslash.
However, I now realize that the test case Johannes mentioned already
covers this behavior. So rather than duplicating that, I think it
would be more useful to add a similar test using the alternative,
Bashism-style syntax:-

function myfunc # RIGHT
{
    echo 'ChangeMe'
}

Thank You
Moumita