On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 01:44:28AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Am I missing something?
>
> If cleanup fails, I want to catch it. Would something like this do?
Ah, I see.
> test_run_ () {
> test_cleanup=:
> eval >&3 2>&4 "$1"
> eval_ret=$?
> eval >&3 2>&4 "$test_cleanup" && (exit "$eval_ret")
> eval_ret=$?
> return 0
> }
>
> test_when_finished () {
> test_cleanup="$* && $test_cleanup"
> }
Doesn't that violate your rule that the cleanup will _always_ be run?
Here, if the first cleanup fails, we don't run subsequent ones.
Perhaps the simplest would be to just keep a cleanup_ret in the second
eval (where you have eval_ret in the original patch), and then act
appropriately after the eval finishes. That would be easier on the eyes,
too, I think.
> To permit a line break at the end of a cleanup command, one can do
>
> test_when_finished () {
> test_cleanup="{ $*
> } && $test_cleanup"
> }
>
> but that might not be worth the ugliness.
I doubt anyone will put a linebreak in, but it is probably better to be
defensive, and the ugliness is at least contained only in that function.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html