list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Taylor Blau <>
To: Jeff King <>
Cc: Taylor Blau <>,
	Eric Sunshine <>,
	Git List <>,
	Derrick Stolee <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] t4216: fix broken '&&'-chain
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:12:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200630191231.GA30767@syl.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 03:03:25PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:39:28PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > > > This ends up working fine when the file already exists, in which case
> > > > 'rm' exits cleanly and the rest of the function executes normally. When
> > > > the file does _not_ exist, however, 'rm' returns an unclean exit code,
> > > > causing the function to terminate.
> > >
> > > This explanation makes no sense. Since this command was not part of
> > > the &&-chain, its failure would not cause the function to terminate
> > > prematurely nor would it affect the return value of the function. This
> > > explanation would make sense, however, if you're talking about the
> > > behavior _after_ fixing the broken &&-chain.
> >
> > Fair enough. For what it's worth, this explanation *does* make sense if
> > you 'set -e' beforehand, which I am accustomed to (and had incorrectly
> > assumed that tests in 't' also have 'set -e', when they do not).
> If we _really_ want to nitpick, it probably wouldn't terminate under
> "set -e" because the call to "setup" is itself part of an &&-chain,
> which suppresses "-e" handling (which is one of the many confusing "set
> -e" behaviors that led us to avoid it in the first place).

I learned something new about 'set -e'! I don't mind nitpicking at all,
it's useful information to know...

> But definitely your revised commit message below is more accurate.
> However...
> > --- >8 ---
> >
> > Subject: [PATCH] t4216: fix broken '&&'-chain
> >
> > The 'rm' added in a759bfa9ee (t4216: add end to end tests for git log
> > with Bloom filters, 2020-04-06) should be placed within the function's
> > '&&'-chain.
> >
> > The file being removed may not exist (for eg., in the case of '--run',
> > in which case it may not be generated beforehand by a skipped test), and
> > so add '-f' to account for the file's optional existence.
> Is the &&-chain really broken, or is the first command simply not part
> of that chain? Perhaps a question for philosophers, but the more applied
> question here is: what are we improving, and why?
> The original code handled the fact that the file might not exist by not
> including its exit code in the &&-chain which leads to the function's
> return value. Your new code does so by putting it in the &&-chain but
> asking "rm" to ignore errors. Is one better than the other?
> I think so, but my argument would be more along the lines of:
>   - without "-f", "rm" will complain about a missing file, which is
>     distracting noise in the test log
>   - once "-f" is added in to suppress that, we might as well add the
>     command to the &&-chain. That's our normal style, so readers don't
>     have to wonder if it's important or not. Plus it would help avoid a
>     broken chain if more commands are added at the beginning of the
>     function.

I made the change for basically these reasons, but mostly to bring this
function into good style as with the rest of our test suite (there are a
handful of other minor nits that we could look at, such as some odd
spacing, etc.).

Whether or not all of this needs to go into the commit message... I
don't know. On the one hand, I think that your explanation here is
clearer than what I wrote in the commit message, but on the other hand,
I think that amending it again may be belaboring an otherwise simple

If you feel strongly, though, I'm happy to send a revised patch.

> -Peff


  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-30 19:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-30 17:17 [PATCH 0/3] commit-graph: introduce 'core.useBloomFilters' Taylor Blau
2020-06-30 17:17 ` [PATCH 1/3] commit-graph: pass a 'struct repository *' in more places Taylor Blau
2020-06-30 20:52   ` Derrick Stolee
2020-06-30 17:17 ` [PATCH 2/3] t4216: fix broken '&&'-chain Taylor Blau
2020-06-30 17:50   ` Eric Sunshine
2020-06-30 18:39     ` Taylor Blau
2020-06-30 19:03       ` Jeff King
2020-06-30 19:12         ` Taylor Blau [this message]
2020-06-30 19:19           ` Jeff King
2020-06-30 19:48         ` Eric Sunshine
2020-06-30 18:55     ` Jeff King
2020-06-30 17:17 ` [PATCH 3/3] commit-graph: respect 'core.useBloomFilters' Taylor Blau
2020-06-30 19:18   ` Jeff King
2020-06-30 19:27     ` Taylor Blau
2020-06-30 19:33       ` Jeff King
2020-08-03 19:02 ` [PATCH 0/3] commit-graph: introduce 'core.useBloomFilters' Taylor Blau

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200630191231.GA30767@syl.lan \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/3] t4216: fix broken '\''&&'\''-chain' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).