Re: [PATCHv2 4/6] t7510: exit for loop with test result

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Johannes Sixt venit, vidit, dixit 13.06.2014 15:21:
> Am 6/13/2014 15:06, schrieb Michael J Gruber:
>> Johannes Sixt venit, vidit, dixit 13.06.2014 14:54:
>>> Am 6/13/2014 14:33, schrieb Michael J Gruber:
>>>> .... with this loop, sorry:
>>>>
>>>> for X in true false; do
>>>>      for Y in false true; do
>>>>        ($X && $Y || exit 1)
>>>>      done
>>>>      echo "$X/last inner $Y: $?"
>>>> done
>>>>
>>>> gives
>>>>
>>>> true/last inner true: 0
>>>> false/last inner true: 1
>>>>
>>>> even though on both cases we have at least one failure of Y. (failure of
>>>> one subtest = failure of the test)
>>>
>>> Place the loop(s) inside the subshell, and you observe termination on the
>>> first failure, and a failure exit code of the subshell.
>>>
>>> The change proposed in this patch should not be necessary. Something else
>>> must be wrong with your tests.
>>
>> I know I started this (or Jeff did, who knows ;) ), but we keep
>> confusing each other more and more:
>>
>>> Ah, here it is:
>>>
>>> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'show signatures' '
>>>  	(
>>>  		for commit in merge^2 fourth-unsigned sixth-unsigned seventh-unsigned
>>>  		do
>>> -			git show --pretty=short --show-signature $commit >actual &&
>>> +			git show --pretty=short --show-signature $commit >actual || exit 1
>>>  			grep "Good signature from" actual && exit 1
>>
>> This is as in the original, it tests invalid signatures, so "Good
>> signature" should not be in the response.
>>
>>>  			! grep "BAD signature from" actual || exit 1
>>>  			echo $commit OK
>>>
>>> Notice the '&& exit 1'! It should be '|| exit 1', right?
>>>
>>> -- Hannes
>>
>> In other words, the original tests already had
>>
>> grep foo && exit 1
>> ! grep bar || exit 1
>>
>> to test that we have neither foo nor bar. The reason is (supposedly) to
>> have this portion of the test mostly analogous to the previous one,
>> where we want foo and do want bar.
>>
>> So this is completely unrelated.
> 
> I don't think so. What is the outcome of
> 
> 	false &&  # simulate a regression
> 	grep foo && exit 1
> 	! grep bar || exit 1
> 
> assuming that the '! grep bar' happens to be true? Answer: The regression
> is not diagnosed because the &&-chain is broken.
> 
> *That* is what I think you described earlier in this thread as "I put
> something failing on the first line of the original version, and the test
> succeeded."
> 
> -- Hannes

If you say that something I have said makes sense I'm happy, because I
can't confirm that myself right now. I'll take a break and look into a
rewrite of the form

a &&
b &&
test_must_fail c &&
d || exit 1

hoping that will make things both readable (by avoiding !) and concise
(by avoiding repeated exits).

Michael