On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 14:11, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 5/25/23 03:00, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 18:38, Richard Henderson > > <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> We currently print FAIL for the failure of a succ_* test, but don't > >> return a failure exit code. Instead, convert the script to emit > >> Test Anything Protocol, which gives visibility into each subtest > >> as well as not relying on exit codes. > >> > >> Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > >> --- > >> tests/decode/check.sh | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > >> tests/meson.build | 1 + > >> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/decode/check.sh b/tests/decode/check.sh > >> index 95445a0115..a3d879a099 100755 > >> --- a/tests/decode/check.sh > >> +++ b/tests/decode/check.sh > >> @@ -4,21 +4,37 @@ > >> > >> PYTHON=$1 > >> DECODETREE=$2 > >> -E=0 > >> +E_FILES=`echo err_*.decode` > >> +S_FILES=`echo succ_*.decode` > > > > If you run shellcheck on this script it produces some > > style complaints. Notably: > > > > * $(...) is better than `...` > > * j=$(($j + 1)) is better than j=`expr $j + 1` > > > > At least some of its "missing quoting" complaints are > > also legitimate, notably on $PYTHON and $DECODETREE. > > "Better" in what sense? Also, this is /bin/sh, not /bin/bash, so I'm never > certain what > I'm really allowed to use.
checkpatch checks POSIX syntax if the script starts with #!/bin/sh. (It's a pretty good tool for spotting "this thing you used isn't actually POSIX", in fact.) shellcheck's rationales are https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC2003 (for expr) -- the POSIX spec itself says "avoid expr in new scripts". (Also I think shell builtin arithmetic should be more efficient than spawning the expr binary) https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC2006 (for backticks) -- backticks have some awkward issues; for consistency I think it's better to use $() everywhere even in the kind of simple case where `` has no problems configure doesn't have any backticks in it. thanks -- PMM
