mirror of
https://github.com/git/git
synced 2024-09-12 21:04:12 +00:00
0d7131763e
>From inception, when chainlint.sed encountered a line using semicolon to
separate commands rather than `&&`, it would insert a ?!SEMI?!
annotation at the beginning of the line rather ?!AMP?! even though the
&&-chain is also broken by the semicolon. Given a line such as:
?!SEMI?! cmd1; cmd2 &&
the ?!SEMI?! annotation makes it easier to see what the problem is than
if the output had been:
?!AMP?! cmd1; cmd2 &&
which might confuse the test author into thinking that the linter is
broken (since the line clearly ends with `&&`).
However, now that the ?!AMP?! an ?!SEMI?! annotations are inserted at
the point of breakage rather than at the beginning of the line, and
taking into account that both represent a broken &&-chain, there is
little reason to distinguish between the two. Using ?!AMP?! alone is
sufficient to point the test author at the problem. For instance, in:
cmd1; ?!AMP?! cmd2 &&
cmd3
it is clear that the &&-chain is broken between `cmd1` and `cmd2`.
Likewise, in:
cmd1 && cmd2 ?!AMP?!
cmd3
it is clear that the &&-chain is broken between `cmd2` and `cmd3`.
Finally, in:
cmd1; ?!AMP?! cmd2 ?!AMP?!
cmd3
it is clear that the &&-chain is broken between each command.
Hence, there is no longer a good reason to make a distinction between a
broken &&-chain due to a semicolon and a broken chain due to a missing
`&&` at end-of-line. Therefore, drop the ?!SEMI?! annotation and use
?!AMP?! exclusively.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| arithmetic-expansion.expect | ||
| arithmetic-expansion.test | ||
| bash-array.expect | ||
| bash-array.test | ||
| blank-line.expect | ||
| blank-line.test | ||
| block.expect | ||
| block.test | ||
| broken-chain.expect | ||
| broken-chain.test | ||
| case.expect | ||
| case.test | ||
| close-nested-and-parent-together.expect | ||
| close-nested-and-parent-together.test | ||
| close-subshell.expect | ||
| close-subshell.test | ||
| command-substitution.expect | ||
| command-substitution.test | ||
| comment.expect | ||
| comment.test | ||
| complex-if-in-cuddled-loop.expect | ||
| complex-if-in-cuddled-loop.test | ||
| cuddled-if-then-else.expect | ||
| cuddled-if-then-else.test | ||
| cuddled-loop.expect | ||
| cuddled-loop.test | ||
| cuddled.expect | ||
| cuddled.test | ||
| exit-loop.expect | ||
| exit-loop.test | ||
| exit-subshell.expect | ||
| exit-subshell.test | ||
| for-loop.expect | ||
| for-loop.test | ||
| here-doc-close-subshell.expect | ||
| here-doc-close-subshell.test | ||
| here-doc-multi-line-command-subst.expect | ||
| here-doc-multi-line-command-subst.test | ||
| here-doc-multi-line-string.expect | ||
| here-doc-multi-line-string.test | ||
| here-doc.expect | ||
| here-doc.test | ||
| if-in-loop.expect | ||
| if-in-loop.test | ||
| if-then-else.expect | ||
| if-then-else.test | ||
| incomplete-line.expect | ||
| incomplete-line.test | ||
| inline-comment.expect | ||
| inline-comment.test | ||
| loop-in-if.expect | ||
| loop-in-if.test | ||
| multi-line-nested-command-substitution.expect | ||
| multi-line-nested-command-substitution.test | ||
| multi-line-string.expect | ||
| multi-line-string.test | ||
| negated-one-liner.expect | ||
| negated-one-liner.test | ||
| nested-cuddled-subshell.expect | ||
| nested-cuddled-subshell.test | ||
| nested-here-doc.expect | ||
| nested-here-doc.test | ||
| nested-subshell-comment.expect | ||
| nested-subshell-comment.test | ||
| nested-subshell.expect | ||
| nested-subshell.test | ||
| one-liner.expect | ||
| one-liner.test | ||
| p4-filespec.expect | ||
| p4-filespec.test | ||
| pipe.expect | ||
| pipe.test | ||
| semicolon.expect | ||
| semicolon.test | ||
| subshell-here-doc.expect | ||
| subshell-here-doc.test | ||
| subshell-one-liner.expect | ||
| subshell-one-liner.test | ||
| t7900-subtree.expect | ||
| t7900-subtree.test | ||
| while-loop.expect | ||
| while-loop.test | ||