On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 02:47:23PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 17 Sep 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 01:23:18PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Also, things like the code tracing via `-x` (which relies on Bash > > > functionality in order to work properly, > > > > Not really. > > To work properly. What I meant was the trick we need to play with > `BASH_XTRACEFD`. I'm still unsure what BASH_XTRACEFD trick you mean. AFAICT we don't play any tricks with it to make '-x' work properly, and indeed '-x' tracing works properly even without BASH_XTRACEFD (and to achive that we did have to play some tricks, but not any with BASH_XTRACEFD; perhaps these tricks are what you meant?). > > > and which _still_ does not work as intended if your test case > > > evaluates a lazy prereq that has not been evaluated before > > > > I don't see any striking differences between the trace output of a test > > involving a lazy prereq from Bash or dash: > > > > [...] > > The evaluation of the lazy prereq is indeed not different between Bash > or dash. It is nevertheless quite disruptive in the trace of a test > script, especially when it is evaluated for a test case that is skipped > explicitly via the `--run` option. But then the actual issue is the unnecessary evaluation of the prereq even when the test framework could know in advance that the test case should be skipped anyway, and the trace from it is a mere side effect, no?
