From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Eric Sunshine via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>,
Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de>,
Lessley Dennington <lessleydennington@gmail.com>,
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] t: detect and signal failure within loop
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 13:59:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqfshoataq.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwnb0av09.fsf@gitster.g> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 22 Aug 2022 13:22:30 -0700")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> "Eric Sunshine via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/t/t5329-pack-objects-cruft.sh b/t/t5329-pack-objects-cruft.sh
>> index 8968f7a08d8..6049e2c1d78 100755
>> --- a/t/t5329-pack-objects-cruft.sh
>> +++ b/t/t5329-pack-objects-cruft.sh
>> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ basic_cruft_pack_tests () {
>> while read oid
>> do
>> path="$objdir/$(test_oid_to_path "$oid")" &&
>> - printf "%s %d\n" "$oid" "$(test-tool chmtime --get "$path")"
>> + printf "%s %d\n" "$oid" "$(test-tool chmtime --get "$path")" || exit 1
>> done |
>> sort -k1
>> ) >expect &&
>
> With the loop being on the upstream of a pipe, does the added "exit
> 1" have any effect?
And the answer is "no". Without use of rhetorical question:
The loop is on the upstream side of a pipe, so "exit 1" will be
lost. "sort -k1" will get a shortened output, unless the
failure happens at the last iteration, so it is likely that the
test may fail, but relying on the "expect" (what is supposed to
have the _right_ answer) file not being right to get our
breakage noticed does not sound right.
> Everything else in these three patches looked very sensible, but
> this one I found questionable.
As to the questionable one, we could probably do something like the
attached patch if we really wanted to. We can guarantee that this
"expect" will never match any "actual", which is output from
pack-mtimes test tool command. Whatever "tricky/ugly" approach we
choose to take, I think this one deserves to be done in a single
patch on its own with an explanation.
----- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 ----
t5329: notice a failure within a loop
We try to write "|| return 1" at the end of a sequence of &&-chained
command in a loop of our tests, so that a failure of any step during
the earlier iteration of the loop can properly be caught.
There is one loop in this test script that is used to compute the
expected result, that will be later compared with an actual output
produced by the "test-tool pack-mtimes" command. This particular
loop, however, is placed on the upstream side of a pipe, whose
non-zero exit code does not get noticed.
Emit a line that will never be produced by the "test-tool pack-mtimes"
to cause the later comparison to fail. As we use test_cmp to compare
this "expected output" file with the "actual output", the "error
message" we are emitting into the expected output stream will stand
out and shown to the tester.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
t/t5329-pack-objects-cruft.sh | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git c/t/t5329-pack-objects-cruft.sh w/t/t5329-pack-objects-cruft.sh
index 6049e2c1d7..43d752acc7 100755
--- c/t/t5329-pack-objects-cruft.sh
+++ w/t/t5329-pack-objects-cruft.sh
@@ -29,7 +29,8 @@ basic_cruft_pack_tests () {
while read oid
do
path="$objdir/$(test_oid_to_path "$oid")" &&
- printf "%s %d\n" "$oid" "$(test-tool chmtime --get "$path")"
+ printf "%s %d\n" "$oid" "$(test-tool chmtime --get "$path")" ||
+ echo "object list generation failed for $obj"
done |
sort -k1
) >expect &&
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-22 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-22 18:26 [PATCH 0/3] tests: fix broken &&-chains & abort loops on error Eric Sunshine via GitGitGadget
2022-08-22 18:26 ` [PATCH 1/3] t2407: fix broken &&-chains in compound statement Eric Sunshine via GitGitGadget
2022-08-22 18:26 ` [PATCH 2/3] t1092: fix buggy sparse "blame" test Eric Sunshine via GitGitGadget
2022-08-22 20:09 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-08-22 18:26 ` [PATCH 3/3] t: detect and signal failure within loop Eric Sunshine via GitGitGadget
2022-08-22 20:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-08-22 20:59 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2022-08-23 6:30 ` Johannes Sixt
2022-08-23 3:05 ` Elijah Newren
2022-08-28 4:50 ` Eric Sunshine
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqfshoataq.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=fs@gigacodes.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=lessleydennington@gmail.com \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).