From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] tests: turn GPG, GPGSM and RFC1991 into lazy prereqs
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 20:39:08 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2003302027240.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200327091004.GA610157@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Hi Peff,
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:27:19PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > > OK. This looks good, even if I cannot help feel that my earlier patch
> > > was perfectly sufficient. ;)
> >
> > The mistake is all mine. I had totally missed that you turned GPG into a
> > lazy prereq. So I had my patch finalized already before you pointed my
> > nose at that fact.
> >
> > Sorry about that.
>
> No problem. And I hope my review didn't sound too passive-aggressive
> with the "well, in MY version we did this...".
FWIW I failed to interpret anything in your reply as passive-aggressive,
probably because I am just too used to receive competent, helpful and
friendly replies from you.
> I focused on the differences because those were the parts that were new
> (and therefore interesting) to me. But I don't think any of them are too
> important either way.
To me, it all sounded like a constructive discussion we had, and since you
already had a working patch that did something very similar to mine, it
made sense to look at their differences.
> > - Since this code is outside of a function, `return` felt like the wrong
> > semantic concept to me. And indeed, I see this (rather scary) part in
> > Bash's documentation of `return` (I did not even bother to look at the
> > POSIX semantics, it scared me so much):
> >
> > The return status is non-zero if `return` is supplied a non-numeric
> > argument, or is used outside a function and not during execution of
> > a script by `.` or `source`.
> >
> > So: the `1` is totally ignored in this context. That alone is reason
> > enough for me to completely avoid it, and use `exit` instead.
>
> I agree the portability rules there are scary, but none of that applies
> because we _are_ in a function: test_eval_inner_(). This behavior is
> intentional and due to a7c58f280a (test: cope better with use of return
> for errors, 2011-08-08). I thought we specifically advertised this
> feature in t/README, but I can't seem to find it.
>
> So my perspective was the opposite of yours: "return" is the officially
> sanctioned way to exit early from a test snippet, and "exit" only
> happens to work because of the undocumented fact that lazy prereqs
> happen in a subshell. But it turns out neither was documented. :)
Can a subshell inside a function cause a `return` from said function? I
don't think so, but let's put that to a test:
function return_from_a_subshell () {
echo before
(echo subshell; return; echo unreachable)
echo after $?
}
Let's run that.
$ return_from_a_subshell
before
subshell
after 0
To me, the fact that that `return` does not return from the function, but
only exits the subshell, in my mind lends more credence to the idea that
`exit` is more appropriate in this context than `return`.
For shiggles, I also added that `$?` because I really, _really_ wanted to
know whether my reading of GNU Bash's documentation was correct, and it
appears I was mistaken: apparently `return` used outside a function does
_not_ cause a non-zero exit code.
> > > In mine I put the test_have_prereq outside the lazy prereq.
> >
> > That makes it essentially a non-lazy prereq.
> >
> > > I don't think it really matters either way (when we later ask if GPGSM
> > > is set, there is no difference between nobody having defined it, and
> > > having a lazy definition that said "no").
> >
> > The difference is when running a test with `--run=<n>` where `<n>` refers
> > to a test case that requires neither GPG nor GPGSM or RFC1991. My version
> > will not evaluate the GPG prereq, yours still will.
>
> Yes. Part of the reason I kept mine as it was is because it matched the
> original behavior better (and I was really only using a lazy prereq
> because we didn't have a non-lazy version). But there's really no reason
> _not_ to be lazy, so as long as it isn't breaking anything I think
> that's a better way forward. (And if it is breaking something, that
> something should be fixed).
I'm glad you agree!
Thanks,
Dscho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-30 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-23 13:09 [PATCH 0/2] Enable GPG in the Windows part of the CI/PR builds Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-23 13:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] tests(gpg): allow the gpg-agent to start on Windows Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-23 17:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-24 19:55 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-24 20:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-24 22:26 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-24 23:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-23 13:09 ` [PATCH 2/2] tests(gpg): increase verbosity to allow debugging Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-23 17:32 ` Jeff King
2020-03-23 18:04 ` Jeff King
2020-03-23 19:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-23 20:15 ` Jeff King
2020-03-23 21:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-23 21:31 ` Jeff King
2020-03-24 21:41 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-24 22:05 ` Jeff King
2020-03-24 22:25 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-24 22:33 ` Jeff King
2020-03-25 5:41 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Enable GPG in the Windows part of the CI/PR builds Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-25 5:41 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] tests(gpg): allow the gpg-agent to start on Windows Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-25 5:41 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] t/lib-gpg.sh: stop pretending to be a stand-alone script Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-26 8:21 ` Jeff King
2020-03-26 13:48 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-26 19:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-25 5:41 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] tests: turn GPG, GPGSM and RFC1991 into lazy prereqs Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-25 17:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-26 8:35 ` Jeff King
2020-03-26 14:27 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-27 9:10 ` Jeff King
2020-03-27 17:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-27 20:24 ` Eric Sunshine
2020-03-27 21:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-28 10:58 ` Jeff King
2020-03-28 10:54 ` Jeff King
2020-03-28 23:49 ` [PATCH v2] t/README: suggest how to leave test early with failure Junio C Hamano
2020-03-29 7:23 ` Eric Sunshine
2020-03-29 14:33 ` Jeff King
2020-03-30 18:39 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2020-03-31 9:34 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] tests: turn GPG, GPGSM and RFC1991 into lazy prereqs Jeff King
2020-03-25 5:41 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] tests: do not let lazy prereqs inside `test_expect_*` turn off tracing Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-25 17:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-26 13:45 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-26 8:49 ` Jeff King
2020-03-26 14:34 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-25 5:41 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] tests: increase the verbosity of the GPG-related prereqs Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-26 8:50 ` Jeff King
2020-03-26 14:36 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-26 15:35 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] Enable GPG in the Windows part of the CI/PR builds Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-26 15:35 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] tests(gpg): allow the gpg-agent to start on Windows Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-26 15:35 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] t/lib-gpg.sh: stop pretending to be a stand-alone script Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-26 15:35 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] tests: do not let lazy prereqs inside `test_expect_*` turn off tracing Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-26 15:35 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] tests: turn GPG, GPGSM and RFC1991 into lazy prereqs Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-26 15:35 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] tests: increase the verbosity of the GPG-related prereqs Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-03-27 9:12 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] Enable GPG in the Windows part of the CI/PR builds Jeff King
2020-03-27 17:45 ` Junio C Hamano
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2003302027240.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
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).