On 01/13/2015 04:37 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Many tests use `program ... && fail=1` to ensure expected
> error situations are indicated. However that would mask
> an unexpected exit (like a crash).
Nice catch, and also e.g. exceeded ulimits would go in that
category.
> [...] Therefore protect such
> calls with `{ program ... | test $? -ne 1; } && fail=1`.
... || test
Well, somehow I think this syntax is
a) hard to read because the exit code is evaluated in 2 places
(explicitly in "test $? -ne 1" and implicitly with "&&"),
and
b) hard to remember, i.e. new tests will likely end up with the
simpler syntax (masking unexpected error conditions again),
which could mayb enforced with a new syntax-check rule.
The construct
{ program ... || test $? -ne 1; } && fail=1
is identical to
program ...
test $? -eq 1 || fail=1
and thus explicitly expecting exit code 1.
Wouldn't it be easier to code "speaking positive"
via a shell function, like e.g. (untested)
expectExit() {
local exp="$1"
shift 1 || framework_failure_
"$@"
test $? -eq $exp || return 1
}
expectExit 1 program ... || fail=1
?
Thanks & have a nice day,
Berny
