Re: [PATCH 11/19] tests: fix broken &&-chains in `$(...)` command substitutions

>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:44 AM Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:39 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > >  test_expect_success !MINGW 'a constipated git dies with SIGPIPE even if parent ignores it' '
> > > -       OUT=$( ((trap "" PIPE; large_git; echo $? 1>&3) | :) 3>&1 ) &&
> > > +       OUT=$( ((trap "" PIPE && large_git; echo $? 1>&3) | :) 3>&1 ) &&
> >
> > Shouldn't the second ';' be replaced with '&&' as well?
>
> Thanks for reading so carefully. In this case, the answer is "no", the
> semicolon is correct. This code legitimately wants to capture in the
> OUT variable the numeric exit status of the command preceding `echo
> $?`. If the semicolon is replaced with `&&`, then the echo won't be
> executed if the exit status is non-zero, but we want `echo` to be
> executed regardless of the exit status. So, the code is correct with
> the semicolon, and would be incorrect with `&&`. (I hope I'm
> explaining this well enough to make sense.)
>
> It's this sort of special case which accounts for why the new linter
> (as mentioned in the cover letter) has special understanding that a
> broken &&-chain can be legitimate in certain circumstances, such as
> explicit handling of `$?`.

> > > -       OUT=$( ((trap "" PIPE; git rm -n "some-file-*"; echo $? 1>&3) | :) 3>&1 ) &&
> > > +       OUT=$( ((trap "" PIPE && git rm -n "some-file-*"; echo $? 1>&3) | :) 3>&1 ) &&
> >
> > Same here; shouldn't the second ';' be replaced with '&&' as well?
>
> Same answer as above.