Re: [PATCH 1/2] test-lib: prevent misuses of --invert-exit-code

["Rubén Justo" <rjusto@gmail.com>]

On 12-sep-2023 04:35:28, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 01:08:11AM +0200, Rubén Justo wrote:
> 
> > GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true and GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true
> > use internnlly the --invert-exit-code machinery.  Therefore if the user
> > wants to use --invert-exit-code in combination with them, the result
> > will be confusing.
> > 
> > For the same reason, we are already using BAIL_OUT if the user tries to
> > combine GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check with --invert-exit-code.
> > 
> > Let's do the same for GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true and
> > GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true.
> 
> OK, so we are trying to find a case where the user is triggering
> --invert-exit-code themselves and complaining. But in the code...
> 
> > @@ -1557,15 +1557,25 @@ then
> >  			say "in GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check mode, setting --invert-exit-code for TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK != true"
> >  			invert_exit_code=t
> >  		fi
> > -	elif test -z "$passes_sanitize_leak" &&
> > -	     test_bool_env GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK false
> > +	elif test_bool_env GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK false
> >  	then
> > -		skip_all="skipping $this_test under GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true"
> > -		test_done
> > +		if test -n "$invert_exit_code"
> > +		then
> > +			BAIL_OUT "cannot use --invert-exit-code under GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true"
> > +		elif test -z "$passes_sanitize_leak"
> > +		then
> > +			skip_all="skipping $this_test under GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true"
> > +			test_done
> > +		fi
> >  	fi
> 
> You can see at the top of the context that we will set
> invert_exit_code=t ourselves, which will then complain here:
> 
> >  	if test_bool_env GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG false
> >  	then
> > +		if test -n "$invert_exit_code"
> > +		then
> > +			BAIL_OUT "cannot use --invert-exit-code and GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true"
> > +		fi
> > +
> >  		if ! mkdir -p "$TEST_RESULTS_SAN_DIR"
> >  		then
> >  			BAIL_OUT "cannot create $TEST_RESULTS_SAN_DIR"
> 
> That varible-set in the earlier context is from running in "check" mode.
> So:
> 
>   make GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true
> 
> will now always fail. But this is the main way you'd want to run it
> (enabling the leak log catches more stuff, and the log-check function
> you touch in patch 2 already covers check mode).
> 
> So I think you'd have to hoist your check above the if/else for setting
> up PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK modes.

Arrg, sorry.  You're right.

This was part of the series by mistake.  Please, discard it.

In my tree, I have a previous commit with:

diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index 87cfea9e9a..46b8a76e9c 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -1556,7 +1556,6 @@ then
                if test -z "$passes_sanitize_leak"
                then
                        say "in GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check mode, setting --invert-exit-code for TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK != true"
-                       invert_exit_code=t
                fi
        elif test_bool_env GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK false
        then

that is part of an unsent attempt to make:

  $ make SANITIZE=leak T=t7510-signed-commit.sh GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check test
 
not to suggest, when GPG is missing, that t7510-signed-commit.sh is a
candidate to be marked as leak-free.  Which is distracting to me.

However I was not satisfied with the solution and discarded it.  But
unfortunately not entirely.  Sorry. 

> 
> -Peff