Re: [PATCH] submodule--helper: set alternateLocation for cloned submodules

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Dec 8, 2016, 18:21 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZs4vy3-1jAxY+95CNRE2_YgTcBTsxR-Mg0xLqCp7UHcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d445a6c3-5375-22cf-4f03-1717559f1157@gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:04 AM, vi0oss <vi0oss@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On 12/08/2016 08:46 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:22:30PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:39 PM,  <vi0oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>      Previously test contained errorneous
>>>>      test_must_fail, which was masked by
>>>>      missing &&.
>>>
>>> I wonder if we could make either
>>> the test_must_fail intelligent to detect such a broken && call chain
>>> or the test_expect_success macro to see for those broken chains.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish we could improve that, but I spend a lot of brain cycles on it at
>>> one point and couldn't come up with a workable solution.
>>>
>>> -Peff
>>>
> Why Git test use &&-chains instead of proper "set -e"?
>

"Because set -e kills the shell and we would want to keep going until the test suite is finished and display a summary what failed" would be my first reaction, but let's dig into history: bb79af9d09 might be helpful on that, but it doesn't explain why we use && chains. I could not find any commit explaining the use of && chains.

e1970ce43abf might be interesting (the introduction of the test suite), as that did not contain && chains.

I guess it would be hard(er) to implement e.g. test_must_fail in an environment where -e is set.