git/t/chainlint/for-loop.expect

(
	for i in a b c
	do
		echo $i ?!AMP?!
		cat <<-EOF ?!LOOP?!
	done ?!AMP?!
	for i in a b c; do
		echo $i &&
		cat $i ?!LOOP?!
	done
)
t/chainlint: add chainlint "loop" and "conditional" 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 06:46:39 +00:00			`(`
			`for i in a b c`
			`do`
chainlint.sed: improve ?!AMP?! placement accuracy When chainlint.sed detects a broken &&-chain, it places an ?!AMP?! annotation at the beginning of the line. However, this is an unusual location for programmers accustomed to error messages (from compilers, for instance) indicating the exact point of the problem. Therefore, relocate the ?!AMP?! annotation to the end of the line in order to better direct the programmer's attention to the source of the problem. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 06:30:50 +00:00			`echo $i ?!AMP?!`
chainlint.pl: complain about loops lacking explicit failure handling Shell `for` and `while` loops do not terminate automatically just because a command fails within the loop body. Instead, the loop continues to iterate and eventually returns the exit status of the final command of the final iteration, which may not be the command which failed, thus it is possible for failures to go undetected. Consequently, it is important for test authors to explicitly handle failure within the loop body by terminating the loop manually upon failure. This can be done by returning a non-zero exit code from within the loop body (i.e. `\|\| return 1`) or exiting (i.e. `\|\| exit 1`) if the loop is within a subshell, or by manually checking `$?` and taking some appropriate action. Therefore, add logic to detect and complain about loops which lack explicit `return` or `exit`, or `$?` check. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2022-09-01 00:29:50 +00:00			`cat <<-EOF ?!LOOP?!`
chainlint.sed: improve ?!AMP?! placement accuracy When chainlint.sed detects a broken &&-chain, it places an ?!AMP?! annotation at the beginning of the line. However, this is an unusual location for programmers accustomed to error messages (from compilers, for instance) indicating the exact point of the problem. Therefore, relocate the ?!AMP?! annotation to the end of the line in order to better direct the programmer's attention to the source of the problem. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 06:30:50 +00:00			`done ?!AMP?!`
t/chainlint: add chainlint "loop" and "conditional" 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 06:46:39 +00:00			`for i in a b c; do`
			`echo $i &&`
chainlint.pl: complain about loops lacking explicit failure handling Shell `for` and `while` loops do not terminate automatically just because a command fails within the loop body. Instead, the loop continues to iterate and eventually returns the exit status of the final command of the final iteration, which may not be the command which failed, thus it is possible for failures to go undetected. Consequently, it is important for test authors to explicitly handle failure within the loop body by terminating the loop manually upon failure. This can be done by returning a non-zero exit code from within the loop body (i.e. `\|\| return 1`) or exiting (i.e. `\|\| exit 1`) if the loop is within a subshell, or by manually checking `$?` and taking some appropriate action. Therefore, add logic to detect and complain about loops which lack explicit `return` or `exit`, or `$?` check. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2022-09-01 00:29:50 +00:00			`cat $i ?!LOOP?!`
t/chainlint: add chainlint "loop" and "conditional" 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 06:46:39 +00:00			`done`
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			`)`