Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] cache-tree tests: use a sub-shell with less indirection

> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 04:35:45PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh b/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
>> index 354b7f15f7..2e3efeb80e 100755
>> --- a/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
>> +++ b/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
>> @@ -27,20 +27,15 @@ generate_expected_cache_tree_rec () {
>>  	printf "SHA $dir (%d entries, %d subtrees)\n" "$entries" "$subtree_count" &&
>>  	for subtree in $subtrees
>>  	do
>> -		cd "$subtree"
>> -		generate_expected_cache_tree_rec "$dir$subtree" || return 1
>> -		cd ..
>> +		(
>> +			cd "$subtree"
>> +			generate_expected_cache_tree_rec "$dir$subtree" || return 1
>> +		)
>>  	done
>
> We don't check that "cd" worked either before or after your patch.
> Should we?
>
> After your patch, we "return" from inside a subshell. Is that portable?
> ISTR issues around that before, but it just have been when we are not in
> a function at all. Still, I wonder if:
>
>   for ...
>   do
> 	(
> 		cd "$subtree" &&
> 		generate_expected_cache_tree_rec "$dir$subtree"
> 	) || return 1
>   done

>
> might be more obvious.
>
>> -generate_expected_cache_tree () {
>> -	(
>> -		generate_expected_cache_tree_rec
>> -	)
>> -}
>
> I wondered what the "rec" was for, but I guess it is "recurse". Not a
> problem to keep it, but I wonder if it could be dropped in the name of
> shortness/simplicity (not worth a re-roll for sure, but maybe worth
> doing so if you re-roll for the above issues).
>
> -Peff