On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 04:41:08AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > Right, the chainlint.pl one is much more thorough. I just wondered if > there were any cases we were worried about it missing, that the internal > one catches. We found one in this thread, but as discussed, it is not a > problem (presumably chainlint.pl catches a "real" case where an > earlier line is hidden by the "&", but I wouldn't mind seeing it > complain here as a matter of style/future-proofing). Hmm, actually chainlint.pl does not seem to catch this: -- >8 -- test_expect_success 'ok, first line cannot break &&-chain' ' true & pid=$! ' test_expect_success 'not ok, failure is lost' ' false && true & pid=$! ' -- >8 -- It's a little funny, because we actually background the whole "false && true" chain. So if you did "wait $pid" at the end, you would see the failure. But the test in this thread doesn't actually do that (it depends on kill after 2 seconds not finding the pid). Plus in general this seems like an accident that we should be flagging. -Peff
