[Junio: If you'd like to pick up this series it still cleanly applies, and merges cleanly with "seen"] On Mon, Dec 13 2021, SZEDER Gábor wrote: Sorry about the late reply, things getting lost around the holidays etc. > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:38:33AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> A re-arrangement-only change to v3[1]. The previous 2/2 is now split >> into two commits, as requested by SZEDER[2] in the removal of >> BASH_XTRACEFD is now its own commit & the rationale for doing so is >> outlined in detail. > > I'm afraid I wasn't clear. What I meant was that if we were to remove > BASH_XTRACEFD, then it should be done its own commit. Aside from whether you think removing it is a good idea, isn't that what this v4 does? In 1/3 I fix -x under non-BASH_XTRACEFD, 2/3 removes test_untraceable, and 3/3 the use of BASH_XTRACEFD. > But again: BASH_XTRACEFD is the only simple yet reliable and robust > way to get -x trace from our tests, so do not remove it. Just to tie off this loose end, I re-read the thread ending in [1] (sent after this reply of yours) and I think my [1] addresses this. Maybe you still disagree, but I don't see how that squares with "reliable and robust" here. I.e. unless we're talking about carrying bash-specific code in the test suite we can't make any real use of the feature, as our tests will need to be compatible with other POSIX shells. I mean, the code changed in 1/3 *was* that bash-specific code, but as that change shows it was rather easily made non-bash-specific. And unless we think we'll add other bash-specific tests (I don't see why, the cross-shell -x support is rather easy to do) .... 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/211216.864k78bsjs.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-v3-0.2-00000000000-20211210T100512Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ >> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20211212201441.GB3400@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (3): >> t1510: remove need for "test_untraceable", retain coverage >> test-lib.sh: remove the now-unused "test_untraceable" facility >> test-lib.sh: remove "BASH_XTRACEFD" >> >> t/README | 3 -- >> t/t1510-repo-setup.sh | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- >> t/test-lib.sh | 66 ++++----------------------------- >> 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-) >> >> Range-diff against v3: >> 1: 7876202c5b0 = 1: 9e7b089dc50 t1510: remove need for "test_untraceable", retain coverage >> -: ----------- > 2: 60883fd95cb test-lib.sh: remove the now-unused "test_untraceable" facility >> 2: a7fc794e20d ! 3: 8b5ae33376e test-lib.sh: remove the now-unused "test_untraceable" facility >> @@ Metadata >> Author: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> ## Commit message ## >> - test-lib.sh: remove the now-unused "test_untraceable" facility >> + test-lib.sh: remove "BASH_XTRACEFD" >> >> - In the preceding commit the use of "test_untraceable=UnfortunatelyYes" >> - was removed from "t1510-repo-setup.sh" in favor of more narrow >> - redirections of the output of specific commands (and not entire >> - sub-shells or functions). >> + Stop setting "BASH_XTRACEFD=4" to direct "-x" output to file >> + descriptor 4 under bash. >> >> - This is in line with the fixes in the series that introduced the >> - "test_untraceable" facility. See 571e472dc43 (Merge branch >> - 'sg/test-x', 2018-03-14) for the series as a whole, and >> - e.g. 91538d0cde9 (t5570-git-daemon: don't check the stderr of a >> - subshell, 2018-02-24) for a commit that's in line with the changes in >> - the preceding commit. >> + When it was added in d88785e424a (test-lib: set BASH_XTRACEFD >> + automatically, 2016-05-11) it was needed as a workaround for various >> + tests that didn't pass cleanly under "-x". >> >> - We've thus solved the TODO item noted when "test_untraceable" was >> - added to "t1510-repo-setup.sh" in 58275069288 (t1510-repo-setup: mark >> - as untraceable with '-x', 2018-02-24). >> + Most of those were later fixed in 71e472dc43 (Merge branch >> + 'sg/test-x', 2018-03-14), and in the preceding commits we've fixed the >> + final remaining and removed the "test_untraceable" facility. >> >> - So let's remove the feature entirely. Not only is it currently unused, >> - but it actively encourages an anti-pattern in our tests. We should be >> - testing the output of specific commands, not entire subshells or >> - functions. >> + The reason we don't need this anymore is becomes clear from reading >> + the rationale in d88785e424a and applying those arguments to the >> + current state of the codebase. In particular it said (with "this" and >> + "it" referring to the problem of tests failing under "-x"): >> >> - That the "-x" output had to be disabled as a result is only one >> - symptom, but even under bash those tests will be harder to debug as >> - the subsequent check of the redirected file will be far removed from >> - the command that emitted the output. >> + "there here isn't a portable or scalable solution to this [...] we >> + can work around it by pointing the "set -x" output to our >> + descriptor 4" >> >> - Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> >> + And finally that: >> >> - ## t/README ## >> -@@ t/README: appropriately before running "make". Short options can be bundled, i.e. >> - -x:: >> - Turn on shell tracing (i.e., `set -x`) during the tests >> - themselves. Implies `--verbose`. >> -- Ignored in test scripts that set the variable 'test_untraceable' >> -- to a non-empty value, unless it's run with a Bash version >> -- supporting BASH_XTRACEFD, i.e. v4.1 or later. >> - >> - -d:: >> - --debug:: >> + "Automatic tests for our "-x" option may be a bit too meta" >> + >> + Those tests are exactly what we've had since aedffe95250 (travis-ci: >> + run tests with '-x' tracing, 2018-02-24), so punting on fixing issues >> + with "-x" by using "BASH_XTRACEFD=4" isn't needed anymore, we're now >> + committing to maintaining the test suite in a way that won't break >> + under "-x". >> + >> + We could retain "BASH_XTRACEFD=4" anyway, but doing so is bad because: >> + >> + 1) Since we're caring about "-x" passing in CI under "dash" on Ubuntu >> + using "BASH_XTRACEFD=4" will amount to hiding an error we'll run >> + into eventually. Tests will pass locally with "bash", but fail in >> + CI with "dash" (or under other non-"bash" shells). >> + >> + 2) As the amended code in "test_eval_" shows (an amended revert to >> + the pre-image of d88785e424a) it's simpler to not have to take >> + this "bash" special-case into account. >> + >> + Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> ## t/test-lib.sh ## >> -@@ t/test-lib.sh: then >> - exit >> - fi >> - >> --if test -n "$trace" && test -n "$test_untraceable" >> --then >> -- # '-x' tracing requested, but this test script can't be reliably >> -- # traced, unless it is run with a Bash version supporting >> -- # BASH_XTRACEFD (introduced in Bash v4.1). >> -- # >> -- # Perform this version check _after_ the test script was >> -- # potentially re-executed with $TEST_SHELL_PATH for '--tee' or >> -- # '--verbose-log', so the right shell is checked and the >> -- # warning is issued only once. >> -- if test -n "$BASH_VERSION" && eval ' >> -- test ${BASH_VERSINFO[0]} -gt 4 || { >> -- test ${BASH_VERSINFO[0]} -eq 4 && >> -- test ${BASH_VERSINFO[1]} -ge 1 >> -- } >> -- ' >> -- then >> -- : Executed by a Bash version supporting BASH_XTRACEFD. Good. >> -- else >> -- echo >&2 "warning: ignoring -x; '$0' is untraceable without BASH_XTRACEFD" >> -- trace= >> -- fi >> --fi >> - if test -n "$trace" && test -z "$verbose_log" >> - then >> - verbose=t >> @@ t/test-lib.sh: else >> exec 4>/dev/null 3>/dev/null >> fi >> -- >> 2.34.1.1024.g573f2f4b767 >> o
