On 5/28/25 6:08 PM, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
On May 28, 2025 / 09:09, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Does this mean no "set +e" statements anywhere and hence that statements
that may fail should be surrounded with something that makes bash ignore
their exit status, e.g. if ... then ... fi?
What I'm thinking of is different. What's in my mind is below: (I have not yet
implemented, so I'm not yet sure if it is really feasible, though)
- If a contributor thinks a new test case should be error free, declare it
by adding the "ERREXIT=1" flag at the beginning of the test case.
- When "check" script finds the "ERREXIT=1" flag in a test case, it does
"set -e" before calling test() or test_device() for the test case. After
the call, do "set +e".
With this approach, the existing test cases are not affected. And we can do the
"set -e" error check in the selected new test cases.
Will this approach fit your needs?
Although I'm not enthusiast about the introduction of yet another global
variable, this would fit my needs.
Does this mean that it is hard to make set -e work in individual tests?
_check() calls _run_group() in a subshell and _run_group() also calls
_run_test() in a subshell so the exclamation mark in front of the
subshell creation shouldn't cause set -e to be ignored, isn't it? The
use of "time" in _call_test() doesn't affect set -e to be ignored either
as far as I know.
Thanks,
Bart.
