From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] test-lib.sh: support -x option for shell-tracing Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:27:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20141010062722.GB17481@peff.net> References: <20141010060636.GA15057@peff.net> <20141010061355.GC15277@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Michael Haggerty To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 10 08:27:36 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XcTfs-0004bU-9c for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:27:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751275AbaJJG1Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:27:25 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:57095 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750905AbaJJG1X (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:27:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 29030 invoked by uid 102); 10 Oct 2014 06:27:24 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 01:27:24 -0500 Received: (qmail 30769 invoked by uid 107); 10 Oct 2014 06:27:25 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:27:25 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:27:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141010061355.GC15277@peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 02:13:55AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > + -x) > + test_eval_start_='set -x' > [...] > + eval "$test_eval_start_ $*" > +} Hmph. I had originally intended to make this "set -x;" with a semicolon, to keep it split from $*. But I forgot to, and much to my surprise, all of the tests still passed. I think that is because each of the tests is one of: 1. Long, in which case we split the commands into their own line, like: test_expect_success 'foo' ' some command ' and the leading newline serves as the separator. or 2. Short, like: test_expect_success 'foo' 'bar' in which case we did not run the test at all, but merely set $1 to 'bar', which of course succeeded. Whoops! Still, I'm surprised that nothing failed due to case 2. I'll send a re-roll in a moment. -Peff