On Fri, Dec 02 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> git show -s --pretty=oneline "$r" >raw && >>> - cat raw | lf_to_nul || exit 1 >>> + cat raw | lf_to_nul || return 1 >>> done >expect && >> >> Using `return 1` here is "obviously correct" since this code is not >> inside a subshell. Furthermore, the exit code of the for-loop itself >> is not being lost down a pipe, so `return 1` is indeed an appropriate >> way to signal failure. Good. > > "return 1" is obvious and safe correction. I have to wonder if > test_expect_success can be taught to be smarter to intercept "exit" > so we do not have to bo so careful, but that would be a much more > involved change to the lower-level of test framework. I can't think of a way to do so that wouldn't involve running the test in a sub-shell, which I think would bring us to the state management problems noted in [1] for Phillip's "test_todo" series, except in this case we'd have those issues trying to pass state back from the "test_expect_success". It's possible, but we'd need to change a lot of code that's expecting to talk to itself via variables in the same shell to use IPC between shells, wouldn't we? 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/221006.86v8owr986.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
