| Message ID | 20211213063059.19424-5-sunshine@sunshineco.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 0cca54c706128338ee79efb55e9c0ddb6be723dc |
| Headers | show |
| Series | generalize chainlint self-tests | expand |
diff --git a/t/chainlint/one-liner.expect b/t/chainlint/one-liner.expect index 237f227349..c64058f7af 100644 --- a/t/chainlint/one-liner.expect +++ b/t/chainlint/one-liner.expect @@ -4,6 +4,6 @@ ?!SEMI?!(foo; bar) && ?!SEMI?!(foo; bar) | -?!SEMI?!(foo; bar) >baz +?!SEMI?!(foo; bar) >baz && (foo "bar; baz") diff --git a/t/chainlint/one-liner.test b/t/chainlint/one-liner.test index 69796d7505..be9858fa29 100644 --- a/t/chainlint/one-liner.test +++ b/t/chainlint/one-liner.test @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ # LINT: top-level one-liner subshell missing internal "&&" and broken &&-chain (foo; bar) && (foo; bar) | -(foo; bar) >baz +(foo; bar) >baz && # LINT: ";" in string not misinterpreted as broken &&-chain (foo "bar; baz")
The purpose of chainlint.sed is to detect &&-chain breakage only within subshells (one level deep); it doesn't bother checking for top-level &&-chain breakage since the &&-chain checker built into t/test-lib.sh should detect broken &&-chains outside of subshells by making them magically exit with code 117. Unfortunately, one of the chainlint.sed self-tests has overly intimate knowledge of this particular division of responsibilities and only cares about what chainlint.sed itself will produce, while ignoring the fact that a more all-encompassing linter would complain about a broken &&-chain outside the subshell. This makes it difficult to re-use the test with a more capable chainlint implementation should one ever be developed. Therefore, adjust the test and its "expected" output to avoid being specific to the tunnel-vision of this one implementation. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> --- t/chainlint/one-liner.expect | 2 +- t/chainlint/one-liner.test | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)