On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:17:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> I'm not sure if there's a good solution, though. Even if you retained >> the subshells and instead did a chain-lint inside each subshell, like >> this: > > So obviously that means "I don't think there's a good solution with this > approach". > > That whole final patch simultaneously impresses and nauseates me. Your > commit message says "no attempt is made at properly parsing shell code", > but we come pretty darn close. I almost wonder if we'd be better off > just parsing some heuristic subset and making sure (via review or > linting) that our tests conform. > > Another option is to not enable this slightly-more-dangerous linting by > default. But that would probably rob it of its usefulness, since it > would just fall to some brave soul to later crank up the linting and fix > everybody else's mistakes. This may be a dumb question, but why can't we run under errexit? If we could do that, we wouldn't need the &&-chaining, and bash would parse the shell for us and exit whenever one command failed. (Is the reason for this documented somewhere? I couldn't find it...)
