Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] test-lib.sh: remove the now-unused "test_untraceable" facility

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I think the method for handling this in the test scripts _is_ worse to
> write, understand, and maintain. The problem to me is less that it's
> ugly to workaround (which as you note in this case is not great, but not
> _too_ bad), but that it's a subtle friction point that may jump up and
> bite any test-writer who does something like:
>
>   (foo && bar) 2>stderr

Yeah, that is a simple example that clearly shows how removal of
BASH_XTRACEFD makes developer's life horrible.

> So my view had always been that BASH_XTRACEFD is the good solution, and
> if people want to make "-x" work reliably under other shells, then I
> won't stop them. But somewhere along the way Gábor did a bunch of fixes
> to get things mostly running, and the use of dash with "-x" got added to
> CI, so now it's a de facto requirement (if you care about CI
> complaining, which we increasingly do).
> ...
> My vision was that we'd leave BASH_XTRACEFD so people using it could
> remain oblivious if they chose, but if the ship has sailed via CI, then
> that might have less value.

Yeah, that matches my understanding.  Unfortunately we cannot easily
remove "dash -x" from CI while keeping "dash" without "-x" X-<.

Still.  I wonder if keeping BASH_XTRACEFD helps developers, when
they need to diagnose a new breakage?  If their new test fails only
in the "dash -x" run but not "bash -x" at the CI, for example?