On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:22:30PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:39 PM, <vi0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Previously test contained errorneous > > test_must_fail, which was masked by > > missing &&. > > I wonder if we could make either > the test_must_fail intelligent to detect such a broken && call chain > or the test_expect_success macro to see for those broken chains.
I don't think test_must_fail is relevant for &&-chains. Even something like: test_must_fail foo bar or: bar test_must_fail foo will both trigger on the &&-chain linter, because it uses a magic exit code to detect the breakage. I think the problem is just that the &&-chain linter cannot peek inside subshells, and that's where the bug was in this case. I wish we could improve that, but I spend a lot of brain cycles on it at one point and couldn't come up with a workable solution. -Peff
