# [PATCH] Kill bashizm in t/t3200-branch.sh and t/t7201-co.sh. 3 messages from 2008-04-10 to 2008-04-10. Participants: Adam Golebiowski, Jeff King, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/13044 ## Adam Golebiowski, 2008-04-10 07:25 Subject: [PATCH] Kill bashizm in t/t3200-branch.sh and t/t7201-co.sh. Message-ID: <20080410072500.GA10188@mysza.eu.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20080410072500.GA10188%40mysza.eu.org ``` On systems with /bin/sh being different than /bin/bash, make test fails due to some bash-specific constructs. This patch makes it possible to run the test-suite systems with on /bin/sh pointing to /bin/ksh. Signed-off-by: Adam Golebiowski --- t/t3200-branch.sh | 2 +- t/t7201-co.sh | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh b/t/t3200-branch.sh index cb5f7a4..e8ff82f 100755 --- a/t/t3200-branch.sh +++ b/t/t3200-branch.sh @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ test_expect_success \ test_expect_success \ 'branch from non-branch HEAD w/--track causes failure' \ - '!(git branch --track my10 HEAD^)' + '! git branch --track my10 HEAD^' # Keep this test last, as it changes the current branch cat >expect < URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20080410081108.GA15858%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <20080410072500.GA10188@mysza.eu.org> ``` On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:25:00AM +0200, Adam Golebiowski wrote: > - '!(git branch --track my10 HEAD^)' > + '! git branch --track my10 HEAD^' These should probably be using the new test_must_fail instead of '!' anyway. -Peff ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2008-04-10 08:34 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kill bashizm in t/t3200-branch.sh and t/t7201-co.sh. Message-ID: <7v63uqxg4u.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v63uqxg4u.fsf%40gitster.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <20080410072500.GA10188@mysza.eu.org> ``` Adam Golebiowski writes: > On systems with /bin/sh being different than /bin/bash, make test fails due > to some bash-specific constructs. This patch makes it possible to run the > test-suite systems with on /bin/sh pointing to /bin/ksh. > > Signed-off-by: Adam Golebiowski > --- > t/t3200-branch.sh | 2 +- > t/t7201-co.sh | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh b/t/t3200-branch.sh > index cb5f7a4..e8ff82f 100755 > --- a/t/t3200-branch.sh > +++ b/t/t3200-branch.sh > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ test_expect_success \ > > test_expect_success \ > 'branch from non-branch HEAD w/--track causes failure' \ > - '!(git branch --track my10 HEAD^)' > + '! git branch --track my10 HEAD^' I do not think you need a subshell for this particular test, so your change would not be making anything worse, but I do not see a point. It is a plain vanilla POSIX shell construct; "! ( compound_list )" is not a bash-ism at all. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_10 > diff --git a/t/t7201-co.sh b/t/t7201-co.sh > index 3111baa..51a9928 100755 > --- a/t/t7201-co.sh > +++ b/t/t7201-co.sh > @@ -335,6 +335,6 @@ test_expect_success \ > git checkout -b delete-me master && > rm .git/refs/heads/delete-me && > test refs/heads/delete-me = "$(git symbolic-ref HEAD)" && > - !(git checkout --track -b track)' > + ! git checkout --track -b track' Same comments apply. Having said that, as both of these tests are trying to make sure that the command fails gracefully (iow, say "failure" and refuse, instead of barfing and dumping core), they could probably use test_must_fail, like this: git checkout -b delete-me master && rm .git/refs/heads/delete-me && test refs/heads/delete-me = "$(git symbolic-ref HEAD)" && - !(git checkout --track -b track)' + test_must_fail git checkout --track -b track' ```