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>
Because `sed` is line-oriented, for ease of implementation, when
chainlint.sed encounters an opening subshell in which the first command
is cuddled with the "(", it splits the line into two lines: one
containing only "(", and the other containing whatever follows "(".
This allows chainlint.sed to get by with a single set of regular
expressions for matching shell statements rather than having to
duplicate each expression (one set for matching non-cuddled statements,
and one set for matching cuddled statements).
However, although syntactically and semantically immaterial, this
transformation has no value to test authors and might even confuse them
into thinking that the linter is misbehaving by inserting (whitespace)
line-noise into the shell code it is validating. Moreover, it also
allows an implementation detail of chainlint.sed to seep into the
chainlint self-test "expect" files, which potentially makes it difficult
to reuse the self-tests should a more capable chainlint ever be
developed.
To address these concerns, stop splitting cuddled "(..." into two lines.
Note that, as an implementation artifact, due to sed's line-oriented
nature, this change inserts a blank line at output time just before the
"(..." line is emitted. It would be possible to suppress this blank line
but doing so would add a fair bit of complexity to chainlint.sed.
Therefore, rather than suppressing the extra blank line, the Makefile's
`check-chainlint` target which runs the chainlint self-tests is instead
modified to ignore blank lines when comparing chainlint output against
the self-test "expect" output. This is a reasonable compromise for two
reasons. First, the purpose of the chainlint self-tests is to verify
that the ?!AMP?! annotations are being correctly added; precise
whitespace is immaterial. Second, by necessity, chainlint.sed itself
already throws away all blank lines within subshells since, when
checking for a broken &&-chain, it needs to check the final _statement_
in a subshell, not the final _line_ (which might be blank), thus it has
never made any attempt to precisely reproduce blank lines in its output.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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>
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>
