Hi,
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> We found a few run-away here documents that are started with an
> end-of-here-doc marker that is incorrectly spelled, e.g.
>
> git some command >actual &&
> cat <<EOF >expect
> ...
> EOF &&
> test_cmp expect actual
>
> which ends up slurping the entire remainder of the script as if it
> were the data. Often the command that gets misused like this exits
> without failure (e.g. "cat" in the above example), which makes the
> command appear to work, without eve executing the remainder of the
s/eve/ever/
> test.
>
> Piggy-back on the test that catches &&-chain breakage to detect this
> case as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>
> ---
I also wonder if we can use an "sh -n" style syntax check some day,
but that's likely harder.
[...]
> --- a/t/test-lib.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib.sh
> @@ -624,9 +624,9 @@ test_run_ () {
> trace=
> # 117 is magic because it is unlikely to match the exit
> # code of other programs
> - test_eval_ "(exit 117) && $1"
> - if test "$?" != 117; then
> - error "bug in the test script: broken &&-chain: $1"
> + if test "OK-117" != "$(test_eval_ "(exit 117) &&
> $1${LF}${LF}echo OK-\$?" 3>&1)"
> + then
> + error "bug in the test script: broken &&-chain or
> run-away HERE-DOC: $1"
> fi
Neat. Why the double-LF?
In some shells, the 3>&1 will last past the function call.
Fortunately, the $() substitution creates a subshell so this doesn't
affect anything later on.
test_eval_inner_ contains a warning not to append anything after the
commands to be evaluated, since whatever you append would pollute -x
tracing output. Fortunately, in this context we have already set
trace= so the warning does not apply.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com>
Thanks.
