From: rsbecker@nexbridge.com
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:39:25 GMT
Subject: RE: [Test Breakage 2.46.0-rc0] Test t0021.35 fails on NonStop
Message-ID: <00c001dad6dd$f336c3e0$d9a44ba0$@nexbridge.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh6cq4ngc.fsf@gitster.g>

On Monday, July 15, 2024 12:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
><rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:
>
>> What is strange is that when running on NonStop using ksh, t0000.1 has
>> never failed. I think the situation is subtly different from what we are
solving.
>> My take is that there is a difference in the local vs. non-local
>> variable set semantic, rather than just accepting the keyword. I would
>> propose that we need a more comprehensive local test to verify the
>> actual expected semantics rather than just testing the syntax.
>
>It is possible that I may be misreading that first test, but as far as I
can tell, it is
>testing not just the syntax but tests how the variables declared "local"
behaves and
>should notice if they are not localized.  It checks that "local"
assignments in
>try_local_xy does take effect, and (more importantly) after try_local_xy
returns, the
>original values are restored.
>
>As I speculated earlier in an earlier message, the breakage you reported
may have to
>do with interaction between "local" and use of a subshell, and perhaps we
can also
>check that pattern in the test.

That is that I am also suggesting but did not say it as precisely. Thanks.