Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Eric Sunshine
fd4094c3ca 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 10:07:41 -07:00
Eric Sunshine
5be30d0cd3 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 14:15:29 -08:00
Eric Sunshine
db8c7a1cc0 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 14:15:29 -08:00
Eric Sunshine
1f718b0b78 t/chainlint: add chainlint "complex" 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>
2018-07-17 09:15:15 -07:00