On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:25 PM Matthew DeVore <matv...@google.com> wrote:
> tests: Add linter check for pipe placement style
Until now, the various "lint" checks have been for genuine portability
problems (except perhaps 'test-lint-duplicates'). This new lint check
makes style violations worthy of failing "make test". Is the indeed
the direction we want to go? (Genuine question. I can formulate
arguments for either side.)
> ---
> diff --git a/t/Makefile b/t/Makefile
> @@ -101,6 +101,16 @@ test-lint-filenames:
> +test-lint-pipes:
> + @# Do not use \ to join lines when the next line starts with a
> + @# pipe. Instead, end the prior line with the pipe, and allow that to
> + @# join the lines implicitly.
> + @bad="$$(${PERL_PATH} -n0e 'm/(\n[^\n|]+\\\n[\t ]+\|[^\n]*)/ and \
> + print qq{$$ARGV:$$1\n\n}' $(T))"; \
> + test -z "$$bad" || { \
> + printf >&2 "pipe at start of line in file(s):\n%s\n" "$$bad";
> \
> + exit 1; }
If we're going in the direction of linting style violations, then
maybe generalize this by calling it "test-lint-style" rather than
"test-lint-pipes", and perhaps move the body of the test to a new
script check-shell-style.pl (or something), much as portability
violations are housed in check-non-portable-shell.pl.
