git/t/chainlint/broken-chain.test

(
	foo &&
# LINT: missing "&&" from "bar"
	bar
	baz &&
# LINT: final statement before closing ")" legitimately lacks "&&"
	wop
)
t/chainlint: add chainlint "basic" 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 06:46:35 +00:00			`(`
			`foo &&`
t/chainlint/*.test: fix invalid test cases due to mixing quote types The chainlint self-test code snippets are supposed to represent the body of a test_expect_success() or test_expect_failure(), yet the contents of a few tests would have caused the shell to report syntax errors had they been real test bodies due to the mix of single- and double-quotes. Although chainlint.sed, with its simplistic heuristics, is blind to this problem, a future more robust chainlint implementation might not have such a limitation. Therefore, stop mixing quote types haphazardly in those tests and unify quoting throughout. While at it, drop chunks of tests which merely repeat what is already tested elsewhere but with alternative quotes. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 06:30:46 +00:00			`# LINT: missing "&&" from "bar"`
t/chainlint: add chainlint "basic" 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 06:46:35 +00:00			`bar`
			`baz &&`
			`# LINT: final statement before closing ")" legitimately lacks "&&"`
			`wop`
			`)`