An unclosed here-doc in a test is a problem, because it silently gobbles
up any remaining commands. Since 99a64e4b73 (tests: lint for run-away
here-doc, 2017-03-22) we detect this by piggy-backing on the internal
chainlint checker in test-lib.sh.
However, it would be nice to detect it in chainlint.pl, for a few
reasons:
- the output from chainlint.pl is much nicer; it can show the exact
spot of the error, rather than a vague "somewhere in this test you
broke the &&-chain or had a bad here-doc" message.
- the implementation in test-lib.sh runs for each test snippet. And
since it requires a subshell, the extra cost is small but not zero.
If chainlint.pl can reliably find the problem, we can optimize the
test-lib.sh code.
The chainlint.pl code never intended to find here-doc problems. But
since it has to parse them anyway (to avoid reporting problems inside
here-docs), most of what we need is already there. We can detect the
problem when we fail to find the missing end-tag in swallow_heredocs().
The extra change in scan_heredoc_tag() stores the location of the start
of the here-doc, which lets us mark it as the source of the error in the
output (see the new tests for examples).
[jk: added commit message and tests]
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The format of a line in /proc/cpuinfo that describes a CPU on s390x
looked different from everybody else, and the code in chainlint.pl
failed to parse it.
* ah/chainlint-cpuinfo-parse-fix:
chainlint.pl: fix /proc/cpuinfo regexp
29fb2ec3 (chainlint.pl: validate test scripts in parallel,
2022-09-01) introduced a function that gets the number of cores from
/proc/cpuinfo on some systems, notably linux.
The regexp it uses (^processor\s*:) fails to match the desired lines in
the s390x architecture, where they look like this:
processor 0: version = FF, identification = 148F67, machine = 2964
As a result, on s390x that function returns 0 as the number of cores,
and the chainlint.pl script exits without doing anything.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Hasenack <andreas.hasenack@canonical.com>
Acked-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When chainlint detects problems in a test, it prints out the name of the
test script, the name of the problematic test, and a copy of the test
definition with "?!FOO?!" annotations inserted at the locations where
problems were detected. Taken together this information is sufficient
for the test author to identify the problematic code in the original
test definition. However, in a lengthy script or a lengthy test
definition, the author may still end up using the editor's search
feature to home in on the exact problem location.
To further assist the test author, display line numbers along with the
annotated test definition, thus allowing the author to jump directly to
each problematic line.
Suggested-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
When chainlint detects problems in a test, it prints out the name of the
test script, the name of the problematic test, and a copy of the test
definition with "?!FOO?!" annotations inserted at the locations where
problems were detected. Taken together this information is sufficient
for the test author to identify the problematic code in the original
test definition. However, in a lengthy script or a lengthy test
definition, the author may still end up using the editor's search
feature to home in on the exact problem location.
To further assist the test author, an upcoming change will display line
numbers along with the annotated test definition, thus allowing the
author to jump directly to each problematic line. As preparation,
upgrade Lexer to latch the line numbers at which each token starts and
ends, and return that information with the token itself.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Although the macOS Terminal.app is "xterm"-compatible, its corresponding
"terminfo" entries -- such as "xterm", "xterm-256color", and
"xterm-new"[1] -- neglect to mention capabilities which Terminal.app
actually supports (such as "dim text"). This oversight on Apple's part
ends up penalizing users of "good citizen" console programs which
consult "terminfo" to tailor their output based upon reported terminal
capabilities (as opposed to programs which assume that the terminal
supports ANSI codes). The same problem is present in other Apple
"terminfo" entries, such as "nsterm"[2], with which macOS Terminal.app
may be configured.
Sidestep this Apple problem by imbuing get_colors() with specific
knowledge of capabilities common to "xterm" and "nsterm", rather than
trusting "terminfo" to report them correctly. Although hard-coding such
knowledge is ugly, "xterm" support is nearly ubiquitous these days, and
Git itself sets precedence by assuming support for ANSI color codes. For
other terminal types, fall back to querying "terminfo" via `tput` as
usual.
FOOTNOTES
[1] iTerm2 FAQ suggests "xterm-new": https://iterm2.com/faq.html
[2] Neovim documentation recommends terminal type "nsterm" with
Terminal.app: https://neovim.io/doc/user/term.html#terminfo
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
When chainlint detects problems in a test, such as a broken &&-chain, it
prints out the test with "?!FOO?!" annotations inserted at each problem
location. However, rather than annotating the original test definition,
it instead dumps out a parsed token representation of the test. Since it
lacks comments, indentations, here-doc bodies, and so forth, this
tokenized representation can be difficult for the test author to digest
and relate back to the original test definition.
However, now that each parsed token carries positional information, the
location of a detected problem can be pinpointed precisely in the
original test definition. Therefore, take advantage of this information
to annotate the test definition itself rather than annotating the parsed
token stream, thus making it easier for a test author to relate a
problem back to the source.
Maintaining the positional meta-information associated with each
detected problem requires a slight change in how the problems are
managed internally. In particular, shell syntax such as:
msg="total: $(cd data; wc -w *.txt) words"
requires the lexical analyzer to recursively invoke the parser in order
to detect problems within the $(...) expression inside the double-quoted
string. In this case, the recursive parse context will detect the broken
&&-chain between the `cd` and `wc` commands, returning the token stream:
cd data ; ?!AMP?! wc -w *.txt
However, the parent parse context will see everything inside the
double-quotes as a single string token:
"total: $(cd data ; ?!AMP?! wc -w *.txt) words"
losing whatever positional information was attached to the ";" token
where the problem was detected.
One way to preserve the positional information of a detected problem in
a recursive parse context within a string would be to attach the
positional information to the annotation textually; for instance:
"total: $(cd data ; ?!AMP:21:22?! wc -w *.txt) words"
and then extract the positional information when annotating the original
test definition.
However, a cleaner and much simpler approach is to maintain the list of
detected problems separately rather than embedding the problems as
annotations directly in the parsed token stream. Not only does this
ensure that positional information within recursive parse contexts is
not lost, but it keeps the token stream free from non-token pollution,
which may simplify implementation of validations added in the future
since they won't have to handle non-token "?!FOO!?" items specially.
Finally, the chainlint self-test "expect" files need a few mechanical
adjustments now that the original test definitions are emitted rather
than the parsed token stream. In particular, the following items missing
from the historic parsed-token output are now preserved verbatim:
* indentation (and whitespace, in general)
* comments
* here-doc bodies
* here-doc tag quoting (i.e. "\EOF")
* line-splices (i.e. "\" at the end of a line)
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
When chainlint detects problems in a test, such as a broken &&-chain, it
prints out the test with "?!FOO?!" annotations inserted at each problem
location. However, rather than annotating the original test definition,
it instead dumps out a parsed token representation of the test. Since it
lacks comments, indentations, here-doc bodies, and so forth, this
tokenized representation can be difficult for the test author to digest
and relate back to the original test definition.
To address this shortcoming, an upcoming change will make it print out
an annotated copy of the original test definition rather than the
tokenized representation. In order to do so, it will need to know the
start and end positions of each token in the original test definition.
As preparation, upgrade TestParser::scan_token() to latch the start and
end position of the token being scanned, and return that information
along with the token itself. A subsequent change will take advantage of
this positional information.
In terms of implementation, TestParser::scan_token() is retrofitted to
return a tuple consisting of the token's lexeme and its start and end
positions, rather than returning just the lexeme. However, an
alternative would be to define a class which represents a token:
package Token;
sub new {
my ($class, $lexeme, $start, $end) = @_;
bless [$lexeme, $start, $end] => $class;
}
sub as_string {
my $self = shift @_;
return $self->[0];
}
sub compare {
my ($x, $y) = @_;
if (UNIVERSAL::isa($y, 'Token')) {
return $x->[0] cmp $y->[0];
}
return $x->[0] cmp $y;
}
use overload (
'""' => 'as_string',
'cmp' => 'compare'
);
The major benefit of the class-based approach is that it is entirely
non-invasive; it requires no additional changes to the rest of the
script since a Token converts automatically to a string, which is what
scan_token() historically returned.
The big downside to the Token approach, however, is that it is _slow_;
on this developer's (old) machine, it increases user-time by an
unacceptable seven seconds when scanning all test scripts in the
project. Hence, the simple tuple approach is employed instead since it
adds only a fraction of a second user-time.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To extract the next token in the input stream, Lexer::scan_token() finds
the start of the token by skipping whitespace, then consumes characters
belonging to the token until it encounters a non-token character, such
as an operator, punctuation, or whitespace. In the case of an operator
or punctuation which ends a token, before returning the just-scanned
token, it pushes that operator or punctuation character back onto the
input stream to ensure that it will be the first character consumed by
the next call to scan_token().
However, scan_token() is intentionally lax when whitespace ends a token;
it doesn't bother pushing the whitespace character back onto the token
stream since it knows that the next call to scan_token() will, as its
first step, skip over whitespace anyhow when looking for the start of
the token.
Although such laxity is harmless for the proper functioning of the
lexical analyzer, it does make it difficult to precisely identify the
token's end position in the input stream. Accurate token position
information may be desirable, for instance, to annotate problems or
highlight other interesting facets of the input found during the parsing
phase. To accommodate such possibilities, tighten scan_token() by making
it push the token-ending whitespace character back onto the input
stream, just as it does for other token-ending characters.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
The logic in TestParser::accumulate() for detecting broken &&-chains is
mostly well-commented, but a couple branches which were deemed obvious
and straightforward lack comments. In retrospect, though, these cases
may give future readers pause, so comment them, as well.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
When `chainlint.pl` detects problems in a test definition, it emits the
test definition with "?!FOO?!" annotations highlighting the problems it
discovered. For instance, given this problematic test:
test_expect_success 'discombobulate frobnitz' '
git frob babble &&
(echo balderdash; echo gnabgib) >expect &&
for i in three two one
do
git nitfol $i
done >actual
test_cmp expect actual
'
chainlint.pl will output:
# chainlint: t1234-confusing.sh
# chainlint: discombobulate frobnitz
git frob babble &&
(echo balderdash ; ?!AMP?! echo gnabgib) >expect &&
for i in three two one
do
git nitfol $i ?!LOOP?!
done >actual ?!AMP?!
test_cmp expect actual
in which it may be difficult to spot the "?!FOO?!" annotations. The
problem is compounded when multiple tests, possibly in multiple
scripts, fail "linting", in which case it may be difficult to spot the
"# chainlint:" lines which delimit one problematic test from another.
To ameliorate this potential problem, colorize the "?!FOO?!" annotations
in order to quickly draw the test author's attention to the problem
spots, and colorize the "# chainlint:" lines to help the author identify
the name of each script and each problematic test.
Colorization is disabled automatically if output is not directed to a
terminal or if NO_COLOR environment variable is set. The implementation
is specific to Unix (it employs `tput` if available) but works equally
well in the Git for Windows development environment which emulates Unix
sufficiently.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The use of `|| return` (or `|| exit`) to signal failure within a loop
isn't effective when the loop is upstream of a pipe since the pipe
swallows all upstream exit codes and returns only the exit code of the
final command in the pipeline.
To work around this limitation, tests may adopt an alternative strategy
of signaling failure by emitting text which would never be emitted in
the non-failing case. For instance:
while condition
do
command1 &&
command2 ||
echo "impossible text"
done |
sort >actual &&
Such usage indicates deliberate thought about failure cases by the test
author, thus flagging them as missing `|| return` (or `|| exit`) is not
helpful. Therefore, take this case into consideration when checking for
explicit loop termination.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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 `$?` check.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are quite a few tests which print an error messages and then
explicitly signal failure with `false`, `return 1`, or `exit 1` as the
final command in an `if` branch. In these cases, the tests don't bother
maintaining the &&-chain between `echo` and the explicit "test failed"
indicator. Since such constructs are manually signaling failure, their
&&-chain breakage is legitimate and safe -- both for the command
immediately preceding `false`, `return`, or `exit`, as well as for all
preceding commands in the `if` branch. Therefore, stop flagging &&-chain
breakage in these sorts of cases.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are cases in which tests capture and check a command's exit code
explicitly without employing test_expect_code(). They do so by
intentionally breaking the &&-chain since it would be impossible to
capture "$?" in the failing case if the `status=$?` assignment was part
of the &&-chain. Since such constructs are manually checking the exit
code, their &&-chain breakage is legitimate and safe, thus should not be
flagged. Therefore, stop flagging &&-chain breakage in such cases.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The exit status of the `&` asynchronous operator which starts a command
in the background is unconditionally zero, and the few places in the
test scripts which launch commands asynchronously are not interested in
the exit status of the `&` operator (though they often capture the
background command's PID). As such, there is little value in complaining
about broken &&-chain for a command launched in the background, and
doing so would only make busy-work for test authors. Therefore, take
this special case into account when checking for &&-chain breakage.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In order to check for &&-chain breakage, each time TestParser encounters
a new command, it checks whether the previous command ends with `&&`,
and -- with a couple exceptions -- signals breakage if it does not. The
first exception is that a command may validly end with `||`, which is
commonly employed as `command || return 1` at the very end of a loop
body to terminate the loop early. The second is that piping one
command's output with `|` to another command does not constitute a
&&-chain break (the exit status of the pipe is the exit status of the
final command in the pipe).
However, it turns out that there are a few additional cases found in the
wild in which it is likely safe for `&&` to be missing even when other
commands follow. For instance:
while {condition-1}
do
test {condition-2} || return 1 # or `exit 1` within a subshell
more-commands
done
while {condition-1}
do
test {condition-2} || continue
more-commands
done
Such cases indicate deliberate thought about failure modes by the test
author, thus flagging them as breaking the &&-chain is not helpful.
Therefore, take these special cases into consideration when checking for
&&-chain breakage.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Although chainlint.pl has undergone a good deal of optimization during
its development -- increasing in speed significantly -- parsing and
validating 1050+ scripts and 16500+ tests via Perl is not exactly
instantaneous. However, perceived performance can be improved by taking
advantage of the fact that there is no interdependence between test
scripts or test definitions, thus parsing and validating can be done in
parallel. The number of available cores is determined automatically but
can be overridden via the --jobs option.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Finish fleshing out chainlint.pl by adding ScriptParser, a parser which
scans shell scripts for tests defined by test_expect_success() and
test_expect_failure(), plucks the test body from each definition, and
passes it to TestParser for validation. It recognizes test definitions
not only at the top-level of test scripts but also tests synthesized
within compound commands such as loops and function.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Continue fleshing out chainlint.pl by adding TestParser, a parser with
special knowledge about how Git tests should be written; for instance,
it knows that commands within a test body should be chained together
with `&&`. An upcoming parser which plucks test definitions from test
scripts will invoke TestParser for each test body it encounters.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Continue fleshing out chainlint.pl by adding a general purpose recursive
descent parser for the POSIX shell command language. Although never
invoked directly, upcoming parser subclasses will extend its
functionality for specific purposes, such as plucking test definitions
from input scripts and applying domain-specific knowledge to perform
test validation.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Begin fleshing out chainlint.pl by adding a lexical analyzer for the
POSIX shell command language. The sole entry point Lexer::scan_token()
returns the next token from the input. It will be called by the upcoming
shell language parser.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Although chainlint.sed usefully identifies broken &&-chains in tests, it
has several shortcomings which include:
* only detects &&-chain breakage in subshells (one-level deep)
* does not check for broken top-level &&-chains; that task is left to
the "magic exit code 117" checker built into test-lib.sh, however,
that detection does not extend to `{...}` blocks, `$(...)`
expressions, or compound statements such as `if...fi`,
`while...done`, `case...esac`
* uses heuristics, which makes it (potentially) fallible and difficult
to tweak to handle additional real-world cases
* written in `sed` and employs advanced `sed` operators which are
probably not well-known to many programmers, thus the pool of people
who can maintain it is likely small
* manually simulates recursion into subshells which makes it much more
difficult to reason about than, say, a traditional top-down parser
* checks each test as the test is run, which can get expensive for
tests which are run repeatedly by functions or loops since their
bodies will be checked over and over (tens or hundreds of times)
unnecessarily
To address these shortcomings, begin implementing a more functional and
precise test linter which understands shell syntax and semantics rather
than employing heuristics, thus is able to recognize structural problems
with tests beyond broken &&-chains.
The new linter is written in Perl, thus should be more accessible to a
wider audience, and is structured as a traditional top-down parser which
makes it much easier to reason about, and allows it to inspect compound
statements within test bodies to any depth.
Furthermore, it can check all test definitions in the entire project in
a single invocation rather than having to be invoked once per test, and
each test definition is checked only once no matter how many times the
test is actually run.
At this stage, the new linter is just a skeleton containing boilerplate
which handles command-line options, collects and reports statistics, and
feeds its arguments -- paths of test scripts -- to a (presently)
do-nothing script parser for validation. Subsequent changes will flesh
out the functionality.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
