The chainlint tests are a series of individual files, each holding a
test body. The "make check-chainlint" target assembles them into a
single file, adding a "test_expect_success" function call around each.
Let's instead include that function call in the files themselves. This
is a little more boilerplate, but has several advantages:
1. You can now run chainlint manually on snippets with just "perl
chainlint.perl chainlint/foo.test". This can make developing and
debugging a little easier.
2. Many of the tests implicitly relied on the syntax of the lines
added by the Makefile (in particular the use of single-quotes).
This assumption is much easier to see when the single-quotes are
alongside the test body.
3. We had no way to test how the chainlint program handled
various test_expect_success lines themselves. Now we'll be able to
check variations.
The change to the .test files was done mechanically, using the same
test names they would have been assigned by the Makefile (this is
important to match the expected output). The Makefile has the minimal
change to drop the extra lines; there are more cleanups possible but a
future patch in this series will rewrite this substantially anyway.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
For multi-line $(...) expressions nested within subshells, chainlint.sed
only recognizes:
x=$(
echo foo &&
...
but it is not unlikely that test authors may also cuddle the command
with the opening "$(", so support that style, as well:
x=$(echo foo &&
...
The closing ")" is already correctly recognized when cuddled or not.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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>
Jeff King