A loop like:
for f in one two; do
something $f ||
break
done
will correctly break out of the loop when we see a failure
of one item, but the resulting exit code will always be
zero. We can fix that by putting the loop into a function or
subshell, but in this case it is simpler still to just
unroll the loop. We do add a helper function, which
hopefully makes the end result even more readable (in
addition to being shorter).
Reported-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When copying the test repository, we try to detect whether
the copy succeeded. However, most of the heavy lifting is
done inside a for loop, where our "break" will lose the exit
code of the failing "cp". We can take advantage of the fact
that we are in a subshell, and just "exit 1" to break out
with a code.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add missing &&, detected by the --chain-lint option
Signed-off-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
All of these cases are moderate since they would most probably not
lead to missed failing tests; either they would fail otherwise, or
fail a rm in test_when_finished only.
Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This test is special for several reasons:
It ends with a "true" statement, which should be a no-op.
It is not because the &&-chain is broken right before it.
Also, looking at what the test intended to test according to
7f578c5 (git-svn: --follow-parent now works on sub-directories of larger
branches, 2007-01-24)
it is not clear how it would achieve that with the given steps.
Amend the test to include the second svn id to be tested for, and
change the tested refs to the ones which are to be expected, and which
make the test pass.
Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This use of "||" fools --chain-lint into thinking the
&&-chain is broken (and indeed, it is somewhat broken; a
failure of update-index in these tests would show the patch
file, even if we never got to the part of the test where we
fed the patch to git-apply).
The extra blocks were there to include more debugging
output, but it hardly seems worth it; the user should know
which command failed (because git-apply will produce error
messages) and can look in the trash directory themselves.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The ":" noop command always returns true, so it is fine to
include these lines in an &&-chain (and it appeases
--chain-lint).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This test uses single quotes inside the single-quoted test
snippet, which effectively makes the contents unquoted.
Since they don't need quoted anyway, this isn't a problem,
but let's switch them to double-quotes to make it more
obviously correct.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some of the symlink tests check an either-or case using the
"||". This is not wrong, but fools --chain-lint into
thinking the &&-chain is broken (in fact, there is no &&
chain here).
We can solve this by wrapping the "||" inside a {} block.
This is a bit more verbose, but this construct is rare, and
the {} block helps call attention to it.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The confirmation tests in t9001 all save the value of
sendemail.confirm, do something to it, then restore it at
the end, in a way that breaks the &&-chain (they are not
wrong, because they save the $? value, but it fools
--chain-lint).
Instead, they can all use test_when_finished, and we can
even make the code simpler by factoring out the shared
lines.
Note that we can _almost_ use test_config here, except that:
1. We do not restore the config with test_unconfig, but by
setting it back to some prior value.
2. We are not always setting a config variable. Sometimes
the change to be undone is unsetting it entirely.
We could teach test_config to handle these cases, but it's
not worth the complexity for a single call-site.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We can use test_must_fail and test_path_* to avoid some
hand-rolled if statements. This makes the code shorter, and
makes it more obvious when we are breaking the &&-chain.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
These say roughly the same thing as the hand-rolled
messages. We do lose the "merge did not complete" debug
message, but merge and write-tree are prefectly capable of
writing useful error messages when they fail.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This test contains a lot of hand-rolled messages to show
when the test fails. We can omit most of these by using
"verbose" and "test_must_fail". A few of them are for
update-index, but we can assume it produces reasonable error
messages when it fails.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We can get rid of a lot of hand-rolled error messages by
using test_must_fail and test_expect_code. The existing code
was careful to use "|| return 1" when breaking the
&&-chain, but it did fool --chain-lint; the new code is more
idiomatic.
We also add some uses of test_when_finished, which is less
cryptic and more robust than putting code at the end of a
test. In two cases we run "git bisect reset" from a
subshell, which is a problem for test_when_finished (it
would not run). However, in both of these cases, we are
performing the tests in one-off sub-repos, so we do not need
to clean up at all (and in fact it is nicer not to if the
user wants to inspect the trash directory after a failure).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This script misses a trivial &&-chain in one of its tests,
but it also has a weird reverse: it includes an &&-chain
outside of any test_expect block! This "cat" should never
fail, but if it did, we would not notice, as it would cause
us to skip the follow-on test entirely (which does not
appear intentional; there are many later tests which rely on
this cat).
Let's instead move the setup into its own test_expect_success
block, which is the standard practice nowadays.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
One of these breakages is in setup, but one is more severe
and may miss a real test failure. These are pulled out from
the rest, though, because we also clean up a few other
anachronisms. The most interesting is the use of this
here-doc construct:
(cat >... <<EOF
...
EOF
) &&
It looks like an attempt to make the &&-chaining more
natural by letting it come at the end of the here-doc. But
the extra sub-shell is so non-idiomatic (plus the lack of
"<<-") that it ends up confusing.
Since these are just using a single line, we can accomplish
the same thing with a single printf (which also makes the
use of tab more obvious than the verbatim whitespace).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As with the earlier patch to fix "trivial" &&-chain
breakage, these missing "&&" operators are not a serious
problem (e.g., we do not expect "echo" to fail).
Ironically, however, inserting them shows that some of the
commands _do_ fail. Specifically, some of the tests start by
making sure we are at a commit with the string "content" in
the file "foo". However, running "git commit" may fail
because the previous test left us in that state already, and
there is nothing to commit.
We could remove these commands entirely, but they serve to
document the test's assumptions, as well as make it robust
when an earlier test has failed. We could use test_might_fail
to handle all cases, but that would miss an unrelated
failure to make the commit. Instead, we can just pass the
--allow-empty flag to git-commit, which means that it will
not complain if our setup is a noop.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The ":" is not a comment marker, but rather a noop command.
Using it as a comment like:
: do something
cmd1 &&
: something else
cmd2
breaks the &&-chain, and we would fail to notice if "cmd1"
failed in this instance. We can just use regular "#"
comments instead.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If we are expecting a command to produce a particular exit
code, we can use test_expect_code. However, some cases are
more complicated, and want to accept one of a range of exit
codes. For these, we end up with something like:
cmd;
case "$?" in
...
That unfortunately breaks the &&-chain and fools
--chain-lint. Since these special cases are so few, we can
wrap them in a block, like this:
{ cmd; ret=$?; } &&
case "$ret" in
...
This accomplishes the same thing, and retains the &&-chain
(the exit status fed to the && is that of the assignment,
which should always be true). It's technically longer, but
it is probably a good thing for unusual code like this to
stand out.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This makes our output in the event of a failure slightly
nicer, and it means that we do not break the &&-chain.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some tests run diff or grep to produce an output, and then
compare the output to an expected value. We know the exit
code we expect these processes to have (e.g., grep yields 0
if it produced output and 1 otherwise), so it would not make
the test wrong to look for it. But the difference between
their output and the expected output (e.g., shown by
test_cmp) is much more useful to somebody debugging the test
than the test just bailing out.
These tests break the &&-chain to skip the exit-code check
of the process. However, we can get the same effect by using
test_might_fail. Note that in some cases the test did use
"|| return 1", which meant the test was not wrong, but it
did fool --chain-lint.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Many tests have an initial setup step that might fail based
on whether earlier tests in the script have succeeded or
not. Using a trick like "|| true" breaks the &&-chain,
missing earlier failures (and fooling --chain-lint).
We can use test_might_fail in some cases, which is correct
and makes the intent more obvious. We can also use
test_unconfig for unsetting config (and which is more
robust, as well).
The case in t9500 is an oddball. It wants to run cmd1 _or_
cmd2, and does it like:
cmd1 || cmd2 &&
other_stuff
It's not wrong in this case, but it's a bad habit to get
into, because it breaks the &&-chain if used anywhere except
at the beginning of the test (and we use the correct
solution here, putting it inside a block for precedence).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
These test scripts likely predate test_must_fail, and can be
made simpler by using it (in addition to making them pass
--chain-lint).
The case in t6036 loses some verbosity in the failure case,
but it is so tied to a specific failure mode that it is not
worth keeping around (and the outcome of the test is not
affected at all).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Many tests that predate the "verbose" helper function use a
pattern like:
test ... || {
echo ...
false
}
to give more verbose output. Using the helper, we can do
this with a single line, and avoid a || which interacts
badly with &&-chaining (besides fooling --chain-lint, we hit
the error block no matter which command in the chain failed,
so we may often show useless results).
In most cases, the messages printed by "verbose" are equally
good (in some cases better; t6006 accidentally redirects the
message to a file!). The exception is t7001, whose output
suffers slightly. However, it's still enough to show the
user which part failed, given that we will have just printed
the test script to stderr.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some tests call test_cmp, and if it fails show the actual
output generated. This is mostly pointless, as test_cmp will
already show a diff between the expected and actual output.
It also fools --chain-lint by putting an "||" in the middle
of the chain, so we'd rather not use this construct.
Note that these cases actually show a pre-processed version
of the data, rather than exactly what test_cmp would show.
However, test_cmp's output is generally good for pointing
the user in the right direction, and they can then dig in
the trash directory themselves if they want to see more
details.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain,
but during a setup phase. We may fail to notice failure in
commands that build the test environment, but these are
typically not expected to fail at all (but it's still good
to double-check that our test environment is what we
expect).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain,
but in a way that probably does not effect the outcome of
the test. Most of these are of the form:
some_cmd >actual
test_cmp expect actual
The main point of the test is to verify the output, and a
failure in some_cmd would probably be noticed by bogus
output. But it is good for the tests to also confirm that
"some_cmd" does not die unexpectedly after producing its
output.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain,
in a location which causes a significant portion of the test
to be missed (e.g., the test effectively does nothing, or
consists of a long string of actions and output comparisons,
and we throw away the exit code of at least one part of the
string).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It's easy to miss an "&&"-chain in a test script, like:
test_expect_success 'check something important' '
cmd1 &&
cmd2
cmd3
'
The test harness will notice if cmd3 fails, but a failure of
cmd1 or cmd2 will go unnoticed, as their exit status is lost
after cmd3 runs.
The toy example above is easy to spot because the "cmds" are
all the same length, but real code is much more complicated.
It's also difficult to detect these situations by statically
analyzing the shell code with regexps (like the
check-non-portable-shell script does); there's too much
context required to know whether a &&-chain is appropriate
on a given line or not.
This patch instead lets the shell check each test by
sticking a command with a specific and unusual return code
at the top of each test, like:
(exit 117) &&
cmd1 &&
cmd2
cmd3
In a well-formed test, the non-zero exit from the first
command prevents any of the rest from being run, and the
test's exit code is 117. In a bad test (like the one above),
the 117 is lost, and cmd3 is run.
When we encounter a failure of this check, we abort the test
script entirely. For one thing, we have no clue which subset
of the commands in the test snippet were actually run.
Running further tests would be pointless, because we're now
in an unknown state. And two, this is not a "test failure"
in the traditional sense. The test script is buggy, not the
code it is testing. We should be able to fix these problems
in the script once, and not have them come back later as a
regression in git's code.
After checking a test snippet for --chain-lint, we do still
run the test itself. We could actually have a pure-lint
mode which just checks each test, but there are a few
reasons not to. One, because the tests are executing
arbitrary code, which could impact the later environment
(e.g., that could impact which set of tests we run at all).
And two, because a pure-lint mode would still be expensive
to run, because a significant amount of code runs outside of
the test_expect_* blocks. Instead, this option is designed
to be used as part of a normal test suite run, where it adds
very little overhead.
Turning on this option detects quite a few problems in
existing tests, which will be fixed in subsequent patches.
However, there are a number of places it cannot reach:
- it cannot find a failure to break out of loops on error,
like:
cmd1 &&
for i in a b c; do
cmd2 $i
done &&
cmd3
which will not notice failures of "cmd2 a" or "cmd b"
- it cannot find a missing &&-chain inside a block or
subfunction, like:
foo () {
cmd1
cmd2
}
foo &&
bar
which will not notice a failure of cmd1.
- it only checks tests that you run; every platform will
have some tests skipped due to missing prequisites,
so it's impossible to say from one run that the test
suite is free of broken &&-chains. However, all tests get
run by _somebody_, so eventually we will notice problems.
- it does not operate on test_when_finished or prerequisite
blocks. It could, but these tends to be much shorter and
less of a problem, so I punted on them in this patch.
This patch was inspired by an earlier patch by Jonathan
Nieder:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/235913
This implementation and all bugs are mine.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git status" now allows the "-v" to be given twice to show the
differences that are left in the working tree not to be committed.
* mg/status-v-v:
commit/status: show the index-worktree diff with -v -v
t7508: test git status -v
t7508: .gitignore 'expect' and 'output' files
"git cherry-pick" used to clean-up the log message even when it is
merely replaying an existing commit. It now replays the message
verbatim unless you are editing the message of resulting commits.
* mg/sequencer-commit-messages-always-verbatim:
sequencer: preserve commit messages
"git rebase -i" recently started to include the number of
commits in the insn sheet to be processed, but on a platform
that prepends leading whitespaces to "wc -l" output, the numbers
are shown with extra whitespaces that aren't necessary.
* es/rebase-i-count-todo:
rebase-interactive: re-word "item count" comment
rebase-interactive: suppress whitespace preceding item count
Test clean-up.
* jc/diff-test-updates:
test_ln_s_add: refresh stat info of fake symbolic links
t4008: modernise style
t/diff-lib: check exact object names in compare_diff_raw
tests: do not borrow from COPYING and README from the real source
t4010: correct expected object names
t9300: correct expected object names
t4008: correct stale comments
A corrupt input to "git diff -M" can cause us to segfault.
* jk/diffcore-rename-duplicate:
diffcore-rename: avoid processing duplicate destinations
diffcore-rename: split locate_rename_dst into two functions
The borrowed code in kwset API did not follow our usual convention
to use "unsigned char" to store values that range from 0-255.
* bw/kwset-use-unsigned:
kwset: use unsigned char to store values with high-bit set
Description given by "grep -h" for its --exclude-standard option
was phrased poorly.
* nd/grep-exclude-standard-help-fix:
grep: correct help string for --exclude-standard
"git remote add" mentioned "--tags" and "--no-tags" and was not
clear that fetch from the remote in the future will use the default
behaviour when neither is given to override it.
* mg/doc-remote-tags-or-not:
git-remote.txt: describe behavior without --tags and --no-tags
"git diff --shortstat --dirstat=changes" showed a dirstat based on
lines that was never asked by the end user in addition to the
dirstat that the user asked for.
* mk/diff-shortstat-dirstat-fix:
diff --shortstat --dirstat: remove duplicate output
The interaction between "git submodule update" and the
submodule.*.update configuration was not clearly documented.
* ms/submodule-update-config-doc:
submodule: improve documentation of update subcommand
