Phillip Wood venit, vidit, dixit 2023-03-26 16:30:31: > On 25/03/2023 08:04, Jeff King wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 03:58:32AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > >>>> This looks like the right solution. I do wonder how Phillip managed to > >>>> miss it, though, since the test script complains loudly. > >>> > >>> I am unable to reproduce any linting errors when running this script > >>> through chainlint, which is why I was more than a little confused by > >>> this patch when I read it, and I was just about to ask for more > >>> information, such as the actual error message. > >> > >> It's not your chain-lint script, but rather the builtin one that sticks > >> "(exit 117) &&" in front of the snippet and evals it. So it creates the > >> exact "foo && bar &" situation by prepending a line to the snippet. > > > > And btw, I think that is the answer to "how did Phillip not notice it?". > > When running "make test" these days, we rely on chainlint.pl to detect > > any problems, and then set GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT=0 so that the scripts do > > not invoke it again. But that variable also suppresses the internal > > linter, and thus "make test" passes, but running the script individually > > does not. > > Ah, that explains it, I was wondering how the CI run had passed. Thanks > to Michael for the patch and Peff and Eric for digging into cause of the > problem > > Best Wishes > > Phillip > > > It does seem like a recipe for confusion if the two linters are not in > > agreement. I think we might want to either: > > > > 1. Say that the internal linter still has value, and tweak the > > suppression so it only turns off the extra per-script run of > > chainlint.pl, and not the internal one (which is cheap-ish to run). > > > > 2. Say that the internal linter does not have value, and we should > > rely on chainlint.pl. In which case we might as well ditch the > > internal one completely. > > > > I'm OK with this direction, if we're comfortable that there are no > > real problems that would be caught by the internal one but not the > > script. > > > > -Peff Yes, I learned quite a bit from that ;) In fact, as a list-irregular these days, I was neither aware of the second linter, nor did I learn it from the test lib code: That gave me the impression that chainlint.pl was merely a self-test of our linter (which I guess was half-true for the invocation that I spotted). I second that we should either settle for one (if one is strictly superior) or else always run both (if we run any of them). They don't cause a noticable overhead, do they? Cheers Michael
