On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:53 AM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:44 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:39 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > test_expect_success !MINGW 'a constipated git dies with SIGPIPE even if parent ignores it' ' > > > - OUT=$( ((trap "" PIPE; large_git; echo $? 1>&3) | :) 3>&1 ) && > > > + OUT=$( ((trap "" PIPE && large_git; echo $? 1>&3) | :) 3>&1 ) && > > > > Shouldn't the second ';' be replaced with '&&' as well? > > Thanks for reading so carefully. In this case, the answer is "no", the > semicolon is correct. This code legitimately wants to capture in the > OUT variable the numeric exit status of the command preceding `echo > $?`. If the semicolon is replaced with `&&`, then the echo won't be > executed if the exit status is non-zero, but we want `echo` to be > executed regardless of the exit status. So, the code is correct with > the semicolon, and would be incorrect with `&&`. (I hope I'm > explaining this well enough to make sense.) > > It's this sort of special case which accounts for why the new linter > (as mentioned in the cover letter) has special understanding that a > broken &&-chain can be legitimate in certain circumstances, such as > explicit handling of `$?`. Ah, right, you had mentioned this in the cover letter. Short term memory on my part, I guess. Thanks for explaining...again. :-) > > > - OUT=$( ((trap "" PIPE; git rm -n "some-file-*"; echo $? 1>&3) | :) 3>&1 ) && > > > + OUT=$( ((trap "" PIPE && git rm -n "some-file-*"; echo $? 1>&3) | :) 3>&1 ) && > > > > Same here; shouldn't the second ';' be replaced with '&&' as well? > > Same answer as above.
