undef/git-commit-vandalism
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
7e32a31b21
git-commit-vandalism/t/chainlint.sed

358 lines
10 KiB
Sed
Raw Normal View History

t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Detect broken &&-chains in tests.
#
# At present, only &&-chains in subshells are examined by this linter;
# top-level &&-chains are instead checked directly by the test framework. Like
# the top-level &&-chain linter, the subshell linter (intentionally) does not
# check &&-chains within {...} blocks.
#
# Checking for &&-chain breakage is done line-by-line by pure textual
# inspection.
#
# Incomplete lines (those ending with "\") are stitched together with following
# lines to simplify processing, particularly of "one-liner" statements.
# Top-level here-docs are swallowed to avoid false positives within the
# here-doc body, although the statement to which the here-doc is attached is
# retained.
#
# Heuristics are used to detect end-of-subshell when the closing ")" is cuddled
# with the final subshell statement on the same line:
#
# (cd foo &&
# bar)
#
# in order to avoid misinterpreting the ")" in constructs such as "x=$(...)"
# and "case $x in *)" as ending the subshell.
#
# Lines missing a final "&&" are flagged with "?!AMP?!", and lines which chain
# commands with ";" internally rather than "&&" are flagged "?!SEMI?!". A line
# may be flagged for both violations.
#
# Detection of a missing &&-link in a multi-line subshell is complicated by the
# fact that the last statement before the closing ")" must not end with "&&".
# Since processing is line-by-line, it is not known whether a missing "&&" is
# legitimate or not until the _next_ line is seen. To accommodate this, within
# multi-line subshells, each line is stored in sed's "hold" area until after
# the next line is seen and processed. If the next line is a stand-alone ")",
# then a missing "&&" on the previous line is legitimate; otherwise a missing
# "&&" is a break in the &&-chain.
#
# (
# cd foo &&
# bar
# )
#
# In practical terms, when "bar" is encountered, it is flagged with "?!AMP?!",
# but when the stand-alone ")" line is seen which closes the subshell, the
# "?!AMP?!" violation is removed from the "bar" line (retrieved from the "hold"
# area) since the final statement of a subshell must not end with "&&". The
# final line of a subshell may still break the &&-chain by using ";" internally
# to chain commands together rather than "&&", so "?!SEMI?!" is never removed
# from a line (even though "?!AMP?!" might be).
#
# Care is taken to recognize the last _statement_ of a multi-line subshell, not
# necessarily the last textual _line_ within the subshell, since &&-chaining
# applies to statements, not to lines. Consequently, blank lines, comment
# lines, and here-docs are swallowed (but not the command to which the here-doc
# is attached), leaving the last statement in the "hold" area, not the last
# line, thus simplifying &&-link checking.
#
# The final statement before "done" in for- and while-loops, and before "elif",
# "else", and "fi" in if-then-else likewise must not end with "&&", thus
# receives similar treatment.
#
chainlint: match arbitrary here-docs tags rather than hard-coded names chainlint.sed swallows top-level here-docs to avoid being fooled by content which might look like start-of-subshell. It likewise swallows here-docs in subshells to avoid marking content lines as breaking the &&-chain, and to avoid being fooled by content which might look like end-of-subshell, start-of-nested-subshell, or other specially-recognized constructs. At the time of implementation, it was believed that it was not possible to support arbitrary here-doc tag names since 'sed' provides no way to stash the opening tag name in a variable for later comparison against a line signaling end-of-here-doc. Consequently, tag names are hard-coded, with "EOF" being the only tag recognized at the top-level, and only "EOF", "EOT", and "INPUT_END" being recognized within subshells. Also, special care was taken to avoid being confused by here-docs nested within other here-docs. In practice, this limited number of hard-coded tag names has been "good enough" for the 13000+ existing Git test, despite many of those tests using tags other than the recognized ones, since the bodies of those here-docs do not contain content which would fool the linter. Nevertheless, the situation is not ideal since someone writing new tests, and choosing a name not in the "blessed" set could potentially trigger a false-positive. To address this shortcoming, upgrade chainlint.sed to handle arbitrary here-doc tag names, both at the top-level and within subshells. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-13 10:47:34 +02:00
# Swallowing here-docs with arbitrary tags requires a bit of finesse. When a
# line such as "cat <<EOF >out" is seen, the here-doc tag is moved to the front
# of the line enclosed in angle brackets as a sentinel, giving "<EOF>cat >out".
# As each subsequent line is read, it is appended to the target line and a
# (whitespace-loose) back-reference match /^<(.*)>\n\1$/ is attempted to see if
# the content inside "<...>" matches the entirety of the newly-read line. For
# instance, if the next line read is "some data", when concatenated with the
# target line, it becomes "<EOF>cat >out\nsome data", and a match is attempted
# to see if "EOF" matches "some data". Since it doesn't, the next line is
# attempted. When a line consisting of only "EOF" (and possible whitespace) is
# encountered, it is appended to the target line giving "<EOF>cat >out\nEOF",
# in which case the "EOF" inside "<...>" does match the text following the
# newline, thus the closing here-doc tag has been found. The closing tag line
# and the "<...>" prefix on the target line are then discarded, leaving just
# the target line "cat >out".
#
t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
# To facilitate regression testing (and manual debugging), a ">" annotation is
# applied to the line containing ")" which closes a subshell, ">>" to a line
# closing a nested subshell, and ">>>" to a line closing both at once. This
# makes it easy to detect whether the heuristics correctly identify
# end-of-subshell.
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# incomplete line -- slurp up next line
:squash
/\\$/ {
t/chainlint.sed: drop extra spaces from regex character class This character class, like many others in this script, matches horizontal whitespace consisting of spaces and tabs, however, a few extra, entirely harmless, spaces somehow slipped into the expression. Removing them is purely a cosmetic fix. While at it, re-indent three lines with a single TAB each which were incorrectly indented with six spaces. Also, a purely cosmetic fix. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-31 07:03:20 +02:00
N
s/\\\n//
bsquash
t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
}
# here-doc -- swallow it to avoid false hits within its body (but keep the
# command to which it was attached)
chainlint: match 'quoted' here-doc tags A here-doc tag can be quoted ('EOF') or escaped (\EOF) to suppress interpolation within the body. Although, chainlint recognizes escaped tags, it does not know about quoted tags. For completeness, teach it to recognize quoted tags, as well. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-13 10:47:35 +02:00
/<<[ ]*[-\\']*[A-Za-z0-9_]/ {
s/^\(.*\)<<[ ]*[-\\']*\([A-Za-z0-9_][A-Za-z0-9_]*\)'*/<\2>\1<</
chainlint: match arbitrary here-docs tags rather than hard-coded names chainlint.sed swallows top-level here-docs to avoid being fooled by content which might look like start-of-subshell. It likewise swallows here-docs in subshells to avoid marking content lines as breaking the &&-chain, and to avoid being fooled by content which might look like end-of-subshell, start-of-nested-subshell, or other specially-recognized constructs. At the time of implementation, it was believed that it was not possible to support arbitrary here-doc tag names since 'sed' provides no way to stash the opening tag name in a variable for later comparison against a line signaling end-of-here-doc. Consequently, tag names are hard-coded, with "EOF" being the only tag recognized at the top-level, and only "EOF", "EOT", and "INPUT_END" being recognized within subshells. Also, special care was taken to avoid being confused by here-docs nested within other here-docs. In practice, this limited number of hard-coded tag names has been "good enough" for the 13000+ existing Git test, despite many of those tests using tags other than the recognized ones, since the bodies of those here-docs do not contain content which would fool the linter. Nevertheless, the situation is not ideal since someone writing new tests, and choosing a name not in the "blessed" set could potentially trigger a false-positive. To address this shortcoming, upgrade chainlint.sed to handle arbitrary here-doc tag names, both at the top-level and within subshells. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-13 10:47:34 +02:00
s/[ ]*<<//
t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
:hereslurp
N
chainlint: match arbitrary here-docs tags rather than hard-coded names chainlint.sed swallows top-level here-docs to avoid being fooled by content which might look like start-of-subshell. It likewise swallows here-docs in subshells to avoid marking content lines as breaking the &&-chain, and to avoid being fooled by content which might look like end-of-subshell, start-of-nested-subshell, or other specially-recognized constructs. At the time of implementation, it was believed that it was not possible to support arbitrary here-doc tag names since 'sed' provides no way to stash the opening tag name in a variable for later comparison against a line signaling end-of-here-doc. Consequently, tag names are hard-coded, with "EOF" being the only tag recognized at the top-level, and only "EOF", "EOT", and "INPUT_END" being recognized within subshells. Also, special care was taken to avoid being confused by here-docs nested within other here-docs. In practice, this limited number of hard-coded tag names has been "good enough" for the 13000+ existing Git test, despite many of those tests using tags other than the recognized ones, since the bodies of those here-docs do not contain content which would fool the linter. Nevertheless, the situation is not ideal since someone writing new tests, and choosing a name not in the "blessed" set could potentially trigger a false-positive. To address this shortcoming, upgrade chainlint.sed to handle arbitrary here-doc tag names, both at the top-level and within subshells. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-13 10:47:34 +02:00
/^<\([^>]*\)>.*\n[ ]*\1[ ]*$/!{
s/\n.*$//
bhereslurp
}
s/^<[^>]*>//
s/\n.*$//
t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
}
# one-liner "(...) &&"
/^[ ]*!*[ ]*(..*)[ ]*&&[ ]*$/boneline
# same as above but without trailing "&&"
/^[ ]*!*[ ]*(..*)[ ]*$/boneline
# one-liner "(...) >x" (or "2>x" or "<x" or "|x" or "&"
/^[ ]*!*[ ]*(..*)[ ]*[0-9]*[<>|&]/boneline
# multi-line "(...\n...)"
/^[ ]*(/bsubshell
# innocuous line -- print it and advance to next line
b
# found one-liner "(...)" -- mark suspect if it uses ";" internally rather than
# "&&" (but not ";" in a string)
:oneline
/;/{
/"[^"]*;[^"]*"/!s/^/?!SEMI?!/
}
b
:subshell
# bare "(" line?
/^[ ]*([ ]*$/ {
# stash for later printing
h
bnextline
}
# "(..." line -- split off and stash "(", then process "..." as its own line
x
s/.*/(/
x
s/(//
bslurp
:nextline
N
s/.*\n//
:slurp
# incomplete line "...\"
/\\$/bincomplete
# multi-line quoted string "...\n..."
/^[^"]*"[^"]*$/bdqstring
# multi-line quoted string '...\n...' (but not contraction in string "it's so")
/^[^']*'[^']*$/{
/"[^'"]*'[^'"]*"/!bsqstring
}
# here-doc -- swallow it
chainlint: match 'quoted' here-doc tags A here-doc tag can be quoted ('EOF') or escaped (\EOF) to suppress interpolation within the body. Although, chainlint recognizes escaped tags, it does not know about quoted tags. For completeness, teach it to recognize quoted tags, as well. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-13 10:47:35 +02:00
/<<[ ]*[-\\']*[A-Za-z0-9_]/bheredoc
t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
# comment or empty line -- discard since final non-comment, non-empty line
# before closing ")", "done", "elsif", "else", or "fi" will need to be
# re-visited to drop "suspect" marking since final line of those constructs
# legitimately lacks "&&", so "suspect" mark must be removed
/^[ ]*#/bnextline
/^[ ]*$/bnextline
# in-line comment -- strip it (but not "#" in a string, Bash ${#...} array
# length, or Perforce "//depot/path#42" revision in filespec)
/[ ]#/{
/"[^"]*#[^"]*"/!s/[ ]#.*$//
}
# one-liner "case ... esac"
/^[ ]*case[ ]*..*esac/bcheckchain
# multi-line "case ... esac"
/^[ ]*case[ ]..*[ ]in/bcase
# multi-line "for ... done" or "while ... done"
/^[ ]*for[ ]..*[ ]in/bcontinue
/^[ ]*while[ ]/bcontinue
/^[ ]*do[ ]/bcontinue
/^[ ]*do[ ]*$/bcontinue
/;[ ]*do/bcontinue
/^[ ]*done[ ]*&&[ ]*$/bdone
/^[ ]*done[ ]*$/bdone
/^[ ]*done[ ]*[<>|]/bdone
/^[ ]*done[ ]*)/bdone
/||[ ]*exit[ ]/bcontinue
/||[ ]*exit[ ]*$/bcontinue
# multi-line "if...elsif...else...fi"
/^[ ]*if[ ]/bcontinue
/^[ ]*then[ ]/bcontinue
/^[ ]*then[ ]*$/bcontinue
/;[ ]*then/bcontinue
/^[ ]*elif[ ]/belse
/^[ ]*elif[ ]*$/belse
/^[ ]*else[ ]/belse
/^[ ]*else[ ]*$/belse
/^[ ]*fi[ ]*&&[ ]*$/bdone
/^[ ]*fi[ ]*$/bdone
/^[ ]*fi[ ]*[<>|]/bdone
/^[ ]*fi[ ]*)/bdone
# nested one-liner "(...) &&"
/^[ ]*(.*)[ ]*&&[ ]*$/bcheckchain
# nested one-liner "(...)"
/^[ ]*(.*)[ ]*$/bcheckchain
# nested one-liner "(...) >x" (or "2>x" or "<x" or "|x")
/^[ ]*(.*)[ ]*[0-9]*[<>|]/bcheckchain
# nested multi-line "(...\n...)"
/^[ ]*(/bnest
# multi-line "{...\n...}"
/^[ ]*{/bblock
# closing ")" on own line -- exit subshell
/^[ ]*)/bclosesolo
# "$((...))" -- arithmetic expansion; not closing ")"
/\$(([^)][^)]*))[^)]*$/bcheckchain
# "$(...)" -- command substitution; not closing ")"
/\$([^)][^)]*)[^)]*$/bcheckchain
# multi-line "$(...\n...)" -- command substitution; treat as nested subshell
t/chainlint.sed: drop extra spaces from regex character class This character class, like many others in this script, matches horizontal whitespace consisting of spaces and tabs, however, a few extra, entirely harmless, spaces somehow slipped into the expression. Removing them is purely a cosmetic fix. While at it, re-indent three lines with a single TAB each which were incorrectly indented with six spaces. Also, a purely cosmetic fix. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-31 07:03:20 +02:00
/\$([ ]*$/bnest
t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
# "=(...)" -- Bash array assignment; not closing ")"
/=(/bcheckchain
# closing "...) &&"
/)[ ]*&&[ ]*$/bclose
# closing "...)"
/)[ ]*$/bclose
# closing "...) >x" (or "2>x" or "<x" or "|x")
/)[ ]*[<>|]/bclose
:checkchain
# mark suspect if line uses ";" internally rather than "&&" (but not ";" in a
# string and not ";;" in one-liner "case...esac")
/;/{
/;;/!{
/"[^"]*;[^"]*"/!s/^/?!SEMI?!/
}
}
# line ends with pipe "...|" -- valid; not missing "&&"
/|[ ]*$/bcontinue
# missing end-of-line "&&" -- mark suspect
/&&[ ]*$/!s/^/?!AMP?!/
:continue
# retrieve and print previous line
x
n
bslurp
# found incomplete line "...\" -- slurp up next line
:incomplete
N
s/\\\n//
bslurp
# found multi-line double-quoted string "...\n..." -- slurp until end of string
:dqstring
s/"//g
N
s/\n//
/"/!bdqstring
bcheckchain
# found multi-line single-quoted string '...\n...' -- slurp until end of string
:sqstring
s/'//g
N
s/\n//
/'/!bsqstring
bcheckchain
# found here-doc -- swallow it to avoid false hits within its body (but keep
chainlint: match arbitrary here-docs tags rather than hard-coded names chainlint.sed swallows top-level here-docs to avoid being fooled by content which might look like start-of-subshell. It likewise swallows here-docs in subshells to avoid marking content lines as breaking the &&-chain, and to avoid being fooled by content which might look like end-of-subshell, start-of-nested-subshell, or other specially-recognized constructs. At the time of implementation, it was believed that it was not possible to support arbitrary here-doc tag names since 'sed' provides no way to stash the opening tag name in a variable for later comparison against a line signaling end-of-here-doc. Consequently, tag names are hard-coded, with "EOF" being the only tag recognized at the top-level, and only "EOF", "EOT", and "INPUT_END" being recognized within subshells. Also, special care was taken to avoid being confused by here-docs nested within other here-docs. In practice, this limited number of hard-coded tag names has been "good enough" for the 13000+ existing Git test, despite many of those tests using tags other than the recognized ones, since the bodies of those here-docs do not contain content which would fool the linter. Nevertheless, the situation is not ideal since someone writing new tests, and choosing a name not in the "blessed" set could potentially trigger a false-positive. To address this shortcoming, upgrade chainlint.sed to handle arbitrary here-doc tag names, both at the top-level and within subshells. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-13 10:47:34 +02:00
# the command to which it was attached)
t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
:heredoc
chainlint: match 'quoted' here-doc tags A here-doc tag can be quoted ('EOF') or escaped (\EOF) to suppress interpolation within the body. Although, chainlint recognizes escaped tags, it does not know about quoted tags. For completeness, teach it to recognize quoted tags, as well. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-13 10:47:35 +02:00
s/^\(.*\)<<[ ]*[-\\']*\([A-Za-z0-9_][A-Za-z0-9_]*\)'*/<\2>\1<</
chainlint: match arbitrary here-docs tags rather than hard-coded names chainlint.sed swallows top-level here-docs to avoid being fooled by content which might look like start-of-subshell. It likewise swallows here-docs in subshells to avoid marking content lines as breaking the &&-chain, and to avoid being fooled by content which might look like end-of-subshell, start-of-nested-subshell, or other specially-recognized constructs. At the time of implementation, it was believed that it was not possible to support arbitrary here-doc tag names since 'sed' provides no way to stash the opening tag name in a variable for later comparison against a line signaling end-of-here-doc. Consequently, tag names are hard-coded, with "EOF" being the only tag recognized at the top-level, and only "EOF", "EOT", and "INPUT_END" being recognized within subshells. Also, special care was taken to avoid being confused by here-docs nested within other here-docs. In practice, this limited number of hard-coded tag names has been "good enough" for the 13000+ existing Git test, despite many of those tests using tags other than the recognized ones, since the bodies of those here-docs do not contain content which would fool the linter. Nevertheless, the situation is not ideal since someone writing new tests, and choosing a name not in the "blessed" set could potentially trigger a false-positive. To address this shortcoming, upgrade chainlint.sed to handle arbitrary here-doc tag names, both at the top-level and within subshells. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-13 10:47:34 +02:00
s/[ ]*<<//
t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
:hereslurpsub
N
chainlint: match arbitrary here-docs tags rather than hard-coded names chainlint.sed swallows top-level here-docs to avoid being fooled by content which might look like start-of-subshell. It likewise swallows here-docs in subshells to avoid marking content lines as breaking the &&-chain, and to avoid being fooled by content which might look like end-of-subshell, start-of-nested-subshell, or other specially-recognized constructs. At the time of implementation, it was believed that it was not possible to support arbitrary here-doc tag names since 'sed' provides no way to stash the opening tag name in a variable for later comparison against a line signaling end-of-here-doc. Consequently, tag names are hard-coded, with "EOF" being the only tag recognized at the top-level, and only "EOF", "EOT", and "INPUT_END" being recognized within subshells. Also, special care was taken to avoid being confused by here-docs nested within other here-docs. In practice, this limited number of hard-coded tag names has been "good enough" for the 13000+ existing Git test, despite many of those tests using tags other than the recognized ones, since the bodies of those here-docs do not contain content which would fool the linter. Nevertheless, the situation is not ideal since someone writing new tests, and choosing a name not in the "blessed" set could potentially trigger a false-positive. To address this shortcoming, upgrade chainlint.sed to handle arbitrary here-doc tag names, both at the top-level and within subshells. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-13 10:47:34 +02:00
/^<\([^>]*\)>.*\n[ ]*\1[ ]*$/!{
s/\n.*$//
bhereslurpsub
}
s/^<[^>]*>//
t/test-lib: teach --chain-lint to detect broken &&-chains in subshells The --chain-lint option detects broken &&-chains by forcing the test to exit early (as the very first step) with a sentinel value. If that sentinel is the test's overall exit code, then the &&-chain is intact; if not, then the chain is broken. Unfortunately, this detection does not extend to &&-chains within subshells even when the subshell itself is properly linked into the outer &&-chain. Address this shortcoming by feeding the body of the test to a lightweight "linter" which can peer inside subshells and identify broken &&-chains by pure textual inspection. Although the linter does not actually parse shell scripts, it has enough knowledge of shell syntax to reliably deal with formatting style variations (as evolved over the years) and to avoid being fooled by non-shell content (such as inside here-docs and multi-line strings). It recognizes modern subshell formatting: statement1 && ( statement2 && statement3 ) && statement4 as well as old-style: statement1 && (statement2 && statement3) && statement4 Heuristics are employed to properly identify the extent of a subshell formatted in the old-style since a number of legitimate constructs may superficially appear to close the subshell even though they don't. For example, it understands that neither "x=$(command)" nor "case $x in *)" end a subshell, despite the ")" at the end of line. Due to limitations of the tool used ('sed') and its inherent line-by-line processing, only subshells one level deep are handled, as well as one-liner subshells one level below that. Subshells deeper than that or multi-line subshells at level two are passed through as-is, thus &&-chains in their bodies are not checked. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-11 08:46:33 +02:00
s/\n.*$//
bcheckchain
# found "case ... in" -- pass through untouched
:case
x
n
/^[ ]*esac/bslurp
bcase
# found "else" or "elif" -- drop "suspect" from final line before "else" since
# that line legitimately lacks "&&"
:else
x
s/?!AMP?!//
x
bcontinue
# found "done" closing for-loop or while-loop, or "fi" closing if-then -- drop
# "suspect" from final contained line since that line legitimately lacks "&&"
:done
x
s/?!AMP?!//
x
# is 'done' or 'fi' cuddled with ")" to close subshell?
/done.*)/bclose
/fi.*)/bclose
bcheckchain
# found nested multi-line "(...\n...)" -- pass through untouched
:nest
x
:nestslurp
n
# closing ")" on own line -- stop nested slurp
/^[ ]*)/bnestclose
# comment -- not closing ")" if in comment
/^[ ]*#/bnestcontinue
# "$((...))" -- arithmetic expansion; not closing ")"
/\$(([^)][^)]*))[^)]*$/bnestcontinue
# "$(...)" -- command substitution; not closing ")"
/\$([^)][^)]*)[^)]*$/bnestcontinue
# closing "...)" -- stop nested slurp
/)/bnestclose
:nestcontinue
x
bnestslurp
:nestclose
s/^/>>/
# is it "))" which closes nested and parent subshells?
/)[ ]*)/bslurp
bcheckchain
# found multi-line "{...\n...}" block -- pass through untouched
:block
x
n
# closing "}" -- stop block slurp
/}/bcheckchain
bblock
# found closing ")" on own line -- drop "suspect" from final line of subshell
# since that line legitimately lacks "&&" and exit subshell loop
:closesolo
x
s/?!AMP?!//
p
x
s/^/>/
b
# found closing "...)" -- exit subshell loop
:close
x
p
x
s/^/>/
b
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink