git-commit-vandalism/t/chainlint/here-doc-multi-line-command-subst.expect

(
	x=$(bobble <<-END &&
		wiffle) ?!AMP?!
	echo $x
)
chainlint: let here-doc and multi-line string commence on same line After swallowing a here-doc, chainlint.sed assumes that no other processing needs to be done on the line aside from checking for &&-chain breakage; likewise, after folding a multi-line quoted string. However, it's conceivable (even if unlikely in practice) that both a here-doc and a multi-line quoted string might commence on the same line: cat <<\EOF && echo "foo bar" data EOF Support this case by sending the line (after swallowing and folding) through the normal processing sequence rather than jumping directly to the check for broken &&-chain. This change also allows other somewhat pathological cases to be handled, such as closing a subshell on the same line starting a here-doc: ( cat <<-\INPUT) data INPUT or, for instance, opening a multi-line $(...) expression on the same line starting a here-doc: x=$(cat <<-\END && data END echo "x") among others. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2018-08-13 10:47:37 +02:00			`(`
chainlint.sed: stop throwing away here-doc tags The purpose of chainlint is to highlight problems it finds in test code by inserting annotations at the location of each problem. Arbitrarily eliding bits of the code it is checking is not helpful, yet this is exactly what chainlint.sed does by cavalierly and unnecessarily dropping the here-doc operator and tag; i.e. `cat <<TAG` becomes simply `cat` in the output. This behavior can make it more difficult for the test writer to align the annotated output of chainlint.sed with the original test code. Address this by retaining here-doc tags. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2021-12-13 07:30:57 +01:00			`x=$(bobble <<-END &&`
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			`wiffle) ?!AMP?!`
chainlint: let here-doc and multi-line string commence on same line After swallowing a here-doc, chainlint.sed assumes that no other processing needs to be done on the line aside from checking for &&-chain breakage; likewise, after folding a multi-line quoted string. However, it's conceivable (even if unlikely in practice) that both a here-doc and a multi-line quoted string might commence on the same line: cat <<\EOF && echo "foo bar" data EOF Support this case by sending the line (after swallowing and folding) through the normal processing sequence rather than jumping directly to the check for broken &&-chain. This change also allows other somewhat pathological cases to be handled, such as closing a subshell on the same line starting a here-doc: ( cat <<-\INPUT) data INPUT or, for instance, opening a multi-line $(...) expression on the same line starting a here-doc: x=$(cat <<-\END && data END echo "x") among others. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2018-08-13 10:47:37 +02:00			`echo $x`
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			`)`