git/t/chainlint/nested-subshell.expect

(
	cd foo &&
	(
		echo a &&
		echo b
	) >file &&
	cd foo &&
	(
		echo a ?!AMP?!
		echo b
	) >file
)
t/chainlint: add chainlint "nested subshell" 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 06:46:38 +00:00			`(`
			`cd foo &&`
			`(`
			`echo a &&`
			`echo b`
chainlint.sed: drop subshell-closing ">" annotation chainlint.sed inserts a ">" annotation at the beginning of a line to signal that its heuristics have identified an end-of-subshell. This was useful as a debugging aid during development of the script, but it has no value to test writers and might even confuse them into thinking that the linter is misbehaving by inserting line-noise into the shell code it is validating. Moreover, its presence also potentially makes it difficult to reuse the chainlint self-test "expect" output should a more capable linter ever be developed. Therefore, drop the ">" annotation. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 06:30:54 +00:00			`) >file &&`
t/chainlint: add chainlint "nested subshell" 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 06:46:38 +00:00			`cd foo &&`
			`(`
t/Makefile: apply chainlint.pl to existing self-tests Now that chainlint.pl is functional, take advantage of the existing chainlint self-tests to validate its operation. (While at it, stop validating chainlint.sed against the self-tests since it will soon be retired.) Due to chainlint.sed implementation limitations leaking into the self-test "expect" files, a few of them require minor adjustment to make them compatible with chainlint.pl which does not share those limitations. First, because `sed` does not provide any sort of real recursion, chainlint.sed only emulates recursion into subshells, and each level of recursion leads to a multiplicative increase in complexity of the `sed` rules. To avoid substantial complexity, chainlint.sed, therefore, only emulates subshell recursion one level deep. Any subshell deeper than that is passed through as-is, which means that &&-chains are not checked in deeper subshells. chainlint.pl, on the other hand, employs a proper recursive descent parser, thus checks subshells to any depth and correctly flags broken &&-chains in deep subshells. Second, due to sed's line-oriented nature, chainlint.sed, by necessity, folds multi-line quoted strings into a single line. chainlint.pl, on the other hand, employs a proper lexical analyzer which preserves quoted strings as-is, including embedded newlines. Furthermore, the output of chainlint.sed and chainlint.pl do not match precisely in terms of whitespace. However, since the purpose of the self-checks is to verify that the ?!AMP?! annotations are being correctly added, minor whitespace differences are immaterial. For this reason, rather than adjusting whitespace in all existing self-test "expect" files to match the new linter's output, the `check-chainlint` target ignores whitespace differences. Since `diff -w` is not POSIX, `check-chainlint` attempts to employ `git diff -w`, and only falls back to non-POSIX `diff -w` (and `-u`) if `git diff` is not available. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2022-09-01 00:29:46 +00:00			`echo a ?!AMP?!`
t/chainlint: add chainlint "nested subshell" 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 06:46:38 +00:00			`echo b`
chainlint.sed: drop subshell-closing ">" annotation chainlint.sed inserts a ">" annotation at the beginning of a line to signal that its heuristics have identified an end-of-subshell. This was useful as a debugging aid during development of the script, but it has no value to test writers and might even confuse them into thinking that the linter is misbehaving by inserting line-noise into the shell code it is validating. Moreover, its presence also potentially makes it difficult to reuse the chainlint self-test "expect" output should a more capable linter ever be developed. Therefore, drop the ">" annotation. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 06:30:54 +00:00			`) >file`
			`)`