From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 14:30:31 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t3070: make chain lint tester happy
Message-ID: <e240a88d-37d0-83c6-7268-0fc15f5dee18@dunelm.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20230325080453.GA852237@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On 25/03/2023 08:04, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 03:58:32AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> 
>>>> This looks like the right solution. I do wonder how Phillip managed to
>>>> miss it, though, since the test script complains loudly.
>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> And btw, I think that is the answer to "how did Phillip not notice it?".
> When running "make test" these days, we rely on chainlint.pl to detect
> any problems, and then set GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT=0 so that the scripts do
> not invoke it again. But that variable also suppresses the internal
> linter, and thus "make test" passes, but running the script individually
> does not.

Ah, that explains it, I was wondering how the CI run had passed. Thanks 
to Michael for the patch and Peff and Eric for digging into cause of the 
problem

Best Wishes

Phillip

> It does seem like a recipe for confusion if the two linters are not in
> agreement. I think we might want to either:
> 
>    1. Say that the internal linter still has value, and tweak the
>       suppression so it only turns off the extra per-script run of
>       chainlint.pl, and not the internal one (which is cheap-ish to run).
> 
>    2. Say that the internal linter does not have value, and we should
>       rely on chainlint.pl. In which case we might as well ditch the
>       internal one completely.
> 
>       I'm OK with this direction, if we're comfortable that there are no
>       real problems that would be caught by the internal one but not the
>       script.
> 
> -Peff