On Jun 12, 2025 / 08:57, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 6/11/25 10:16 PM, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > I'm afraid, no. I'm thinking about this kind of test cases:
> >
> > - it uses "set -e"
> > - it does not use subshell
> > - it has clean up code in test() or test_device()
> > ('IOW, it does not register cleanup handler by _register_test_cleanup())
> >
> > For such test cases, the clean up code in test() or test_device() can be skipped
> > by error exit by "set -e" regardless of the "set +e" in _call_test().
>
> Let's rely on source code review to catch test scripts that use set -e
> without subshell.
I agree. I drop this 2nd patch.
As to the 1st patch, I would like to wait a few more days to see if anyone has
opinion on it.
