[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] {master} tests: enable 'errexit' shell flag by default.

From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [PATCH] {master} tests: enable 'errexit' shell flag by default.
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:32:39 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

On Tuesday 11 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 03:02:09AM CET:
> > Finally, here is the patch that moves the setting of the `errexit'
> > shell flag in the `tests/defs' script.
> > Here are the steps I followed to write the patch:
> > 
> >  [1] I got the list of non-generated test scripts:
> >       $ tests=`grep -L '^#.* GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY' tests/*.test`
> > 
> >  [2] I checked that each of those test scripts had *one only* occurence
> >      of a `set -e' line, and that this line occurred immediately after
> >      the inclusion the `./defs' script:
> >        $ perl $tests
> >      (see attachement for the script)
> > 
> >  [3] I used GNU sed to remove that `set -e' line and the single following
> >      blank line (if any) for each of those scripts:
> >       $ sed -i '/^set -e$/{ N; /^set -e\n *$/d; s/^set -e\n//; }' $tests
> > 
> >  [4] I updated files ChangeLog, tests/defs and tests/README by hand.
> > 
> > The patch is attached (compressed, as it's pretty big and repetitive).
> > Inline below are the most relevant hunks.
> So you're saying we already use 'set -e' in every test? 

> Nice.
> Remains only bumping copyrights.
Hmm... Honestly, I left that out deliberately, since the edits done by
this patch to the test scripts are very obvious, and because I usually
take the copyright years to be a rough indicator of how long a file
hasn't been touched by "real" edits (I know the git history is more
faithful on this, but still).

> For that, I guess since the testsuite
> is going to be churned completely anyway, I suggest we just use the
> update-copyright script from gnulib to update it overall and be done
> with it.  Would you be willing to do this (preapproved; with
In light of what I said above, do you still believe the copyright bump
is really necessary?  If yes, I will amend the patch to include it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]