Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: be resilient against running with the -x flag

> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:49:42PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> I wonder if we can fix "-x" instead so that we do not have to
>> butcher tests like this patch does.  It was quite clear what it
>> expected to see before this patch, and it is sad that the workaround
>> makes less readable (and relies on the real output we are looking
>> for never begins with '+').
>
> I don't think there is a scalable, portable way to do so. "-x" output is
> going to stderr, and is inherited by any functions or subshells. So
> either we have to ask "-x" output to go somewhere else, or we have to
> turn it off inside the functions and subshells. The latter requires
> tweaking each site, which isn't scalable. And there is no way to do the
> former in a portable way (AFAIK).

> That being said, bash supports BASH_XTRACEFD, so maybe something like
> this:
>
> diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
> index 286c5f3..482ec11 100644
> --- a/t/test-lib.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib.sh
> @@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ then
>  else
>  	exec 4>/dev/null 3>/dev/null
>  fi
> +BASH_XTRACEFD=4
>  
>  test_failure=0
>  test_count=0
>
> would help Dscho's case (and people on other shells aren't helped, but
> they are not hurt either).