git-commit-vandalism/t/chainlint/if-in-loop.expect

(
	for i in a b c
	do
		if false
		then
			echo "err"
			exit 1
		fi ?!AMP?!
		foo
	done ?!AMP?!
	bar
)
t/chainlint: add chainlint "complex" test cases The --chain-lint option uses heuristics and knowledge of shell syntax to detect broken &&-chains in subshells by pure textual inspection. The heuristics handle a range of stylistic variations in existing tests (evolved over the years), however, they are still best-guesses. As such, it is possible for future changes to accidentally break assumptions upon which the heuristics are based. Protect against this possibility by adding tests which check the linter itself for correctness. In addition to protecting against regressions, these tests help document (for humans) expected behavior, which is important since the linter's implementation language ('sed') does not necessarily lend itself to easy comprehension. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2018-07-11 08:46:41 +02:00			`(`
			`for i in a b c`
			`do`
			`if false`
			`then`
chainlint.pl: don't flag broken &&-chain if failure indicated explicitly There are quite a few tests which print an error messages and then explicitly signal failure with `false`, `return 1`, or `exit 1` as the final command in an `if` branch. In these cases, the tests don't bother maintaining the &&-chain between `echo` and the explicit "test failed" indicator. Since such constructs are manually signaling failure, their &&-chain breakage is legitimate and safe -- both for the command immediately preceding `false`, `return`, or `exit`, as well as for all preceding commands in the `if` branch. Therefore, stop flagging &&-chain breakage in these sorts of cases. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2022-09-01 02:29:49 +02:00			`echo "err"`
t/chainlint: add chainlint "complex" test cases The --chain-lint option uses heuristics and knowledge of shell syntax to detect broken &&-chains in subshells by pure textual inspection. The heuristics handle a range of stylistic variations in existing tests (evolved over the years), however, they are still best-guesses. As such, it is possible for future changes to accidentally break assumptions upon which the heuristics are based. Protect against this possibility by adding tests which check the linter itself for correctness. In addition to protecting against regressions, these tests help document (for humans) expected behavior, which is important since the linter's implementation language ('sed') does not necessarily lend itself to easy comprehension. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2018-07-11 08:46:41 +02:00			`exit 1`
chainlint.sed: improve ?!AMP?! placement accuracy When chainlint.sed detects a broken &&-chain, it places an ?!AMP?! annotation at the beginning of the line. However, this is an unusual location for programmers accustomed to error messages (from compilers, for instance) indicating the exact point of the problem. Therefore, relocate the ?!AMP?! annotation to the end of the line in order to better direct the programmer's attention to the source of the problem. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 07:30:50 +01:00			`fi ?!AMP?!`
t/chainlint: add chainlint "complex" test cases The --chain-lint option uses heuristics and knowledge of shell syntax to detect broken &&-chains in subshells by pure textual inspection. The heuristics handle a range of stylistic variations in existing tests (evolved over the years), however, they are still best-guesses. As such, it is possible for future changes to accidentally break assumptions upon which the heuristics are based. Protect against this possibility by adding tests which check the linter itself for correctness. In addition to protecting against regressions, these tests help document (for humans) expected behavior, which is important since the linter's implementation language ('sed') does not necessarily lend itself to easy comprehension. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2018-07-11 08:46:41 +02:00			`foo`
chainlint.sed: improve ?!AMP?! placement accuracy When chainlint.sed detects a broken &&-chain, it places an ?!AMP?! annotation at the beginning of the line. However, this is an unusual location for programmers accustomed to error messages (from compilers, for instance) indicating the exact point of the problem. Therefore, relocate the ?!AMP?! annotation to the end of the line in order to better direct the programmer's attention to the source of the problem. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 07:30:50 +01:00			`done ?!AMP?!`
t/chainlint: add chainlint "complex" test cases The --chain-lint option uses heuristics and knowledge of shell syntax to detect broken &&-chains in subshells by pure textual inspection. The heuristics handle a range of stylistic variations in existing tests (evolved over the years), however, they are still best-guesses. As such, it is possible for future changes to accidentally break assumptions upon which the heuristics are based. Protect against this possibility by adding tests which check the linter itself for correctness. In addition to protecting against regressions, these tests help document (for humans) expected behavior, which is important since the linter's implementation language ('sed') does not necessarily lend itself to easy comprehension. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2018-07-11 08:46:41 +02:00			`bar`
chainlint.sed: drop subshell-closing ">" annotation chainlint.sed inserts a ">" annotation at the beginning of a line to signal that its heuristics have identified an end-of-subshell. This was useful as a debugging aid during development of the script, but it has no value to test writers and might even confuse them into thinking that the linter is misbehaving by inserting line-noise into the shell code it is validating. Moreover, its presence also potentially makes it difficult to reuse the chainlint self-test "expect" output should a more capable linter ever be developed. Therefore, drop the ">" annotation. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 07:30:54 +01:00			`)`