On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 04:35:45PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> diff --git a/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh b/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
> index 354b7f15f7..2e3efeb80e 100755
> --- a/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
> +++ b/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
> @@ -27,20 +27,15 @@ generate_expected_cache_tree_rec () {
> printf "SHA $dir (%d entries, %d subtrees)\n" "$entries" "$subtree_count" &&
> for subtree in $subtrees
> do
> - cd "$subtree"
> - generate_expected_cache_tree_rec "$dir$subtree" || return 1
> - cd ..
> + (
> + cd "$subtree"
> + generate_expected_cache_tree_rec "$dir$subtree" || return 1
> + )
> done
We don't check that "cd" worked either before or after your patch.
Should we?
After your patch, we "return" from inside a subshell. Is that portable?
ISTR issues around that before, but it just have been when we are not in
a function at all. Still, I wonder if:
for ...
do
(
cd "$subtree" &&
generate_expected_cache_tree_rec "$dir$subtree"
) || return 1
done
might be more obvious.
> -generate_expected_cache_tree () {
> - (
> - generate_expected_cache_tree_rec
> - )
> -}
I wondered what the "rec" was for, but I guess it is "recurse". Not a
problem to keep it, but I wonder if it could be dropped in the name of
shortness/simplicity (not worth a re-roll for sure, but maybe worth
doing so if you re-roll for the above issues).
-Peff
