Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] test-tool: don't fake up BUG() exits as code 99

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Change the BUG() function invoked be "test-tool" to be the "real" one,
>> instead of one that avoids producing core files. In
>> a86303cb5d5 (test-tool: help verifying BUG() code paths, 2018-05-02)
>> to test the (then recently added) BUG() function we faked up the
>> abort() in favor of an exit with code 99.
>>
>> However, in doing so we've been fooling ourselves when it comes to
>> what trace2 events we log. The events tested for in
>> 0a9dde4a04c (usage: trace2 BUG() invocations, 2021-02-05) are not the
>> real ones, but those that we emit only from the "test-tool".
>
> I can fully agree with the above reasoning, i.e. let's test what we
> do use in production, instead of something nobody uses for real, if
> we were adding a test for BUG() in vacuum, but why did we have to
> "fake" it in the first place?

>> Let's just stop faking it, and call abort(). As a86303cb5d5 notes this
>> will produce core files on some OS's, but as the default behavior for
>> that is to dump them in the current directory they'll be placed in the
>> trash directory that we'll shortly me "rm -rf"-ing.
>
> Are we sure that the reason no longer applies?  How do we know?  We
> would want to explain that to future developers in the proposed log
> message, I would think.

>> +	elif test_match_signal 6 $exit_code && list_contains "$_test_ok" sigabrt
>> +	then
>> +		return 0
>>  	elif test_match_signal 13 $exit_code && list_contains "$_test_ok" sigpipe
>
> Not a new problem, but these numberings are probably not very
> portable.  I am willing to take this as-is and let people on
> minority platforms complain ;-)