On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:55 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "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? It might make more sense to turn this on its head and make it a linting issue and simply throw a "?!FOO?!" as is done for other suspect shell code. In fact, I already have local chainlint.pl patches which detect whether a subshell is active so that the linter can complain if it sees `cd` outside of a subshell. I would think that warning about misuse of `exit 1` outside a subshell (and perhaps `return 1` inside a subshell) should be possible, though I haven't thought through all the possibilities.
