Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Eric Sunshine
d73f5cfa89 chainlint.sed: stop splitting "(..." into separate lines "(" and "..."
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>
2021-12-13 14:15:29 -08:00
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
24c8618064 t/chainlint: add chainlint "cuddled" 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 09:15:14 -07:00