From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DFED2DE6E6 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 03:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776740467; cv=none; b=Zviu7Tx9PZ1ATWSoCxZLjta4v9C8El8l9slD4NWMvZMn69KZ3NlWdHPh0DcAEHRasByyD3lL4IBNxGTTOppv/8lNj/V2It3e2FyFC/mymE7P0PR3PigR/5137EAn0DHucJ1RYF+vxUaP88/ByXP9Dph8FXM+jEDuyLuv6Hxc0wA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776740467; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cEcTC/LRvhyOoUjQ6AYkAzzJ3Z+l3+NXQXWaMZvg6y0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=sy5wQApIejRpbgD1u8XkNijpwlIQ050o+HqjOcr7kkZY+fwnAEB0HJJf38tRWnyI960IlhK5SrXbmkDWCGiX9wue0zIY3oTLfZpfaOv5iPhF0zrx4ljm0nmi9wb/EyGeuFx22LeXgs8WP2VCbPycdAv60vPOOSA+Oks7JoQCFQM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=cVaQVhnD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="cVaQVhnD" Received: (qmail 411274 invoked by uid 106); 21 Apr 2026 03:00:46 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=cEcTC/LRvhyOoUjQ6AYkAzzJ3Z+l3+NXQXWaMZvg6y0=; b=cVaQVhnDgs3ChHmVkpaWLKTUjh5Y3m/riKXUdWchCGOtgISfR/luKOS6pMvaOzd8ivAwQ+ABBODAVrxjgXNyw4KPnPsHUBvdtcCTXyDwTOTi+WHZt2myJ4WlUPJTrNvbXqyrgwmd5QR+T3o+17tOPe5s7DJwForAe6GAtqoGgOIHYCLOzejz46caINiHWhV7UacKAVGKP9F4/JUUxTgpRe7sZl5gikWwI7ez9g6rksF2tvjBMeZ7x2ycoHbG7vFNWMFOCi/X/1Y/LkImDmjHEjJC1lXqpWdzEGkdzkVmkJtK/LTDcN80i22yBAwEhuM8CNdMrX5eflgDlEqpT3YeIg== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 03:00:45 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 941176 invoked by uid 111); 21 Apr 2026 03:00:45 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 20 Apr 2026 23:00:45 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 23:00:45 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , git@vger.kernel.org, SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] t: detect errors outside of test cases Message-ID: <20260421030045.GA1870557@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20260413-b4-pks-tests-with-set-e-v1-0-5b83763a0e84@pks.im> <20260420-b4-pks-tests-with-set-e-v5-0-7d3d68292f6b@pks.im> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 09:19:12AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt writes: > > > I've created an MR with GitLab [2] and a PR with GitHub [3] to verify > > that these changes work on both platforms. > > > > Changes in v5: > > - Allow opting in via `GIT_TEST_USE_SET_E=yes` and enable this option > > for Linux CI jobs. > > - Another fix for a potentially-failing command. > > - Link to v4: https://patch.msgid.link/20260417-b4-pks-tests-with-set-e-v4-0-44d43efdafb1@pks.im > > I agree that the explicit GIT_TEST_USE_SET_E option is a good way to > go, as it would be clear which ones are (and which ones are not) > using it. I am not sure why we have check_fsck() thing? Wasn't it > determined that this would fail only with a broken shells, or is it > futureproofing just in case the function is used without being > tested? Yes, I think it would only fail on a broken shell. It's not _wrong_ to protect against it, but it's the tip of the iceberg. There are many other spots that rely on "set -e" being suppressed inside test snippets, not the least of which is every single final command in each snippet (because it's at the end of the &&-chain). So I think it is better to draw the line at things that actually trigger with working shells. -Peff