Re: [PATCH] t3070: make chain lint tester happy

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Mar 25, 2023, 08:06 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cSdBTeeWX-UAoUXzt1b+nC=xRgtPTHgtg+kSBAbeCKedg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230325075832.GA579632@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:58 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 02:54:45AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > I am unable to reproduce any linting errors when running this script
> > through chainlint, which is why I was more than a little confused by
> > this patch when I read it, and I was just about to ask for more
> > information, such as the actual error message.
>
> It's not your chain-lint script, but rather the builtin one that sticks
> "(exit 117) &&" in front of the snippet and evals it. So it creates the
> exact "foo && bar &" situation by prepending a line to the snippet.

Thanks for clarifying that. I failed to infer that from the commit message.

Show 14 quoted lines

> So running (on seen, which has 1f2e05f0b79):
>
>   ./t3070-wildmatch.sh
>
> gives me:
>
>   ok 1890 - ipathmatch (via ls-files): match '[Z-y]' 'Z'
>   error: bug in the test script: broken &&-chain or run-away HERE-DOC:
>         test-tool wildmatch wildmatch \
>                 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab \
>                 "*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a" &
>         pid=$! &&
>         sleep 2 &&
>         ! kill $!

Yes, I can reproduce it now. My mistake was that I tested 'seen' rather than 1f2e05f0b79, not realizing that Junio had already applied Michael's patch. (I meant to check if it had been applied, but forgot to do so.)