On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 10:42:59PM +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote: > On Sun, Mar 10 2019, Luis Ressel wrote: > > > test_begin_subtest "List all items" > > -notmuch config list 2>&1 | notmuch_config_sanitize > OUTPUT > > +notmuch config list 2>OUTPUT-ERR | notmuch_config_sanitize > OUTPUT > > +echo "====" >> OUTPUT > > +notmuch_config_sanitize < OUTPUT-ERR >> OUTPUT > > IMO the above would be better (model/pattern for further use) as: > > notmuch config list >STDOUT 2>STDERR > { cat STDOUT; echo "===="; cat STDERR; } | notmuch_config_sanitize > OUTPUT Yes, that'd certainly look better. > (I would like to put that cat-echo-cat into function but naming is hard...) "concat" perhaps? Or "concat_separator"/"concat_with_separator"? > alternatives: > > 1) drop ====, then one cat STDOUT STDERR ... would be enough > > 2) printf '%s====\n%s' "$(< STDOUT)" "$(< STDERR)" > > 3) head -1000 STDOUT STDERR > > -- in case of (3) are we sure that all head(1) implementations print the > filenames (and formats (possible) extra newlines) the same way. > > -- ( (2) brings $(< ...) (faster replacement for $(cat ...) which we > haven't used in notmuch test suite so far -- but we could!) Any of those options would be fine with me, with a preference for 2). As for 3), POSIX specifies the exact header format head should use: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/head.html (There may be nonconformant implementations anyway, of course.) Regards, Luis Ressel _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch