From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.146]) (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 E0C1F330650 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 05:41:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.146 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776750075; cv=none; b=LgknTTEw1XPqfq+8Vaq7peWCnIjhLsqtEfIZd6UBMp1yi+IvF9valVw5Ph3qTmatSAjyoT9RjMtDYnVbzLFBdrPruxh9vL9WUyVRZ1qOCq1pN9rjFA/1V5ms+MfMsdA2vNTV/OLPoqJPrkRpJf83HRW5kZZ8j18uA8oWE//8pPQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776750075; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hYYyg0sxvpG+C+QexDPrHXChU84fJTnvR8b5D1XU83o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=G3otFZjLumQyWpdu7iuhOuOjpZvxtVxdx3wFrUB/91uDfDgTgaUGDA441woTPE8D45qWyJjs/dxd4qk5C5xONjpKQkwIJzuS4u9oEzOpY9dPr0ZIqrOQcD0aQCbN/LM4eYC+IvIePCAZfus7i7JlhzYWS2wx3ycNm5sf6FaoToU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=uPbkSdGo; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=s0kty23q; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.146 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="uPbkSdGo"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="s0kty23q" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34911EC0094; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 01:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-03 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 21 Apr 2026 01:41:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1776750073; x=1776836473; bh=jv7QwOXbdw epsFMLzYSVSn+ASzZJH/f+V8Ioa2YTM1M=; b=uPbkSdGoL8MS98uqtSfmBiUAnA ASR4BjzOT2njrdnAgNptze7nVflgZNCUsUzzVVMptZ+NXvb00xRP0cdNkym9ss4b egbBh9sPNr+o3FuIjIo7/NVvZ2pThwZMTvCj3UKJ96Fc9fpqtm1PP6b7zIVJrq0I m7eqmlxF1v0uJl7GP46KXMxkUbqiGYS41BvUa+yfW1i9zD//V8tIiJFy7WdqO2Z6 UuMbysau1softRepDl+4XIo6Icogif911xUY+buyOPzhEoDKjwqFtDHjigD8VOmj oG7XlYgC7gBqOy+e3o4wEruIgZuSpi23DdwG7kSIFXeJ6XoUpj6lUqwWkgow== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1776750073; x=1776836473; bh=jv7QwOXbdwepsFMLzYSVSn+ASzZJH/f+V8I oa2YTM1M=; b=s0kty23qaTrGb1nzQVg+fBat0uRZI7Szfin18Rh4DNF/AeH6/jX 038W89BCXkFilbLT7wKebY2exyltdbnzZdt/O25vIxqXfTD+A1v1sx//cH9moFeY iH+mLx8kT10sQBe2j4PetYynCPnjjPrLHFQoYt2ZajHkLeY2DPrl5QQb8sHp29z/ oQeGuxRNtN3a8xn78TynFmJyj5guWBTpUTR9ipcY5P3ikVAw3oJxyuvjgWm/aFIz ClkaDWuOVTeopQA3oeqC4VkWqPN1hFl16f7z/4AstxJhFLY0hoGKOt9YdqnjgdcA UkfNQW7XOXP8QcW2z4g1t7Y26PlEVhr7AoQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefhedrtddtgdeitdehlecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttd dtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgtkhcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhs rdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfedutdduhfdtleffieekvdfgheegvdevgedtud efvddvffdtteduvdehfedufedtnecuffhomhgrihhnpehmshhgihgurdhlihhnkhenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpshesphhksh drihhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeegpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthho pehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepphgvfhhfsehpvg hffhdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhrtghp thhtohepshiivgguvghrrdguvghvsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 01:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id b696f0ad (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2026 05:41:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 07:41:08 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] t: detect errors outside of test cases Message-ID: 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> <20260421030045.GA1870557@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260421030045.GA1870557@coredump.intra.peff.net> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 11:00:45PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > 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. Okay, that's fair enough. Let me drop that part again and then send out another (hopefully final) version. Thanks! Patrick