Re: [PATCH 1/2] test-lib: allow test snippets as here-docs

> > >     cat <<EOFA && x=$(cat <<EOFB &&
> > >     A body
> > >     EOFA
> > >     B body
> > >     EOFB
> [...]
> In retrospect, I think my claim is bogus in the context of
> ScriptParser::parse_cmd(). Specifically, ScriptParser::parse_cmd()
> calls its parent ShellParser::parse_cmd() to latch one command.
> ShellParser::parse_cmd() stops parsing as soon as it encounters a
> command terminator (i.e. `;`, `&&`, `||`, `|`, '&', '\n') and returns
> the command. Moreover, by definition, given the language
> specification, the lexer only consumes the heredocs upon encountering
> `\n`. Thus, if someone writes:
> 
>     test_expect_success title - <<\EOT && whatever &&
>     ...test body...
>     EOT
> 
> then ScriptParser::parse_cmd() will receive the command
> `test_expect_success title -` from ShellParser::parse_cmd() but the
> heredoc will not yet have been consumed by the lexer since it hasn't
> yet encountered the newline[1].
> 
> So, the above example simply can't work correctly given the way
> ScriptParser::parse_cmd() calls ScriptParser::check_test() as soon as
> it encounters a `test_expect_success/failure` invocation since it
> doesn't know if the heredocs have been latched at that point.

> To make it properly robust, rather than immediately calling
> check_test(), it would have to continue consuming commands, and saving
> the ones which match `test_expect_success/failure` invocation, until
> it finally hits a `\n`, and only then call check_test() with each
> command it saved.  But that's probably overkill at this point
> considering that we never write code like the above, so the submitted
> patch[2] is probably good enough for now.