git/t/chainlint/cuddled.test

# LINT: first subshell statement cuddled with opening "("
(cd foo &&
	bar
) &&

# LINT: same with missing "&&"
(cd foo
	bar
) &&

# LINT: closing ")" cuddled with final subshell statement
(
	cd foo &&
	bar) &&

# LINT: "(" and ")" cuddled with first and final subshell statements
(cd foo &&
	bar) &&

# LINT: same with missing "&&"
(cd foo
	bar)
t/chainlint/*.test: generalize self-test commentary The purpose of chainlint.sed is to detect &&-chain breakage only within subshells (one level deep); it doesn't bother checking for top-level &&-chain breakage since the &&-chain checker built into t/test-lib.sh should detect broken &&-chains outside of subshells by making them magically exit with code 117. However, this division of labor may not always be the case if a more capable chainlint implementation is ever developed. Beyond that, due to being sed-based and due to its use of heuristics, chainlint.sed has several limitations (such as being unable to detect &&-chain breakage in subshells more than one level deep since it only manually emulates recursion into a subshell). Some of the comments in the chainlint self-tests unnecessarily reflect the limitations of chainlint.sed even though those limitations are not what is being tested. Therefore, simplify and generalize the comments to explain only what is being tested, thus ensuring that they won't become outdated if a more capable chainlint is ever developed. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 06:30:47 +00:00			`# LINT: first subshell statement cuddled with opening "("`
t/chainlint: add chainlint "cuddled" test cases The --chain-lint option uses heuristics and knowledge of shell syntax to detect broken &&-chains in subshells by pure textual inspection. The heuristics handle a range of stylistic variations in existing tests (evolved over the years), however, they are still best-guesses. As such, it is possible for future changes to accidentally break assumptions upon which the heuristics are based. Protect against this possibility by adding tests which check the linter itself for correctness. In addition to protecting against regressions, these tests help document (for humans) expected behavior, which is important since the linter's implementation language ('sed') does not necessarily lend itself to easy comprehension. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2018-07-11 06:46:40 +00:00			`(cd foo &&`
			`bar`
			`) &&`

			`# LINT: same with missing "&&"`
			`(cd foo`
			`bar`
			`) &&`

			`# LINT: closing ")" cuddled with final subshell statement`
			`(`
			`cd foo &&`
			`bar) &&`

			`# LINT: "(" and ")" cuddled with first and final subshell statements`
			`(cd foo &&`
			`bar) &&`

			`# LINT: same with missing "&&"`
			`(cd foo`
			`bar)`