Re: ATF confusion with improperly terminated script

[Julio Merino <jmmv%homeworld.netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Julio Merino 
> <jmmv%homeworld.netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> >
> > But all the above are wild guesses. ?Maybe your problem comes from
> > somewhere else ;-)
> 
>     Close, but not quite. The issue is scope [and/or whether or not
> it's executing the functions in a subshell?], and it's something that
> I didn't realize before now. Note that magically everything works
> within the scope of the function, but outside of foo(), bar() and
> baz() aren't visible. So that's why the ATF functions work in the
> script I attached earlier, but filters out the nested functions when
> it checks for the testcases, whereas the standalone functions executed
> without complaint. Guess that's what I get for trying to be foolishly
> clever.
>     AFAICT POSIX doesn't have anything to say on the subject of
> function scope (probably because no one thought someone would abuse
> function nesting), but the inability to execute nested functions in my
> clever manner appears to be consistent behavior with FreeBSD's ash and
> bash at least, so slap on the wrist for me :). It's interesting how
> bash barfs on the eval'ed command, but that's purely an `academic'
> observation.
>     So, I guess I'll use some Makefile-fu to produce the testcases instead.

The scoping of the function definitions should not have any effect.
I have in the past dynamically generated test cases and they just work.

Take a look at the tests in src/tests/ipf.  For example:

http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/tests/ipf/h_common.sh?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&only_with_tag=MAIN
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/tests/ipf/t_filter_exec.sh?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&only_with_tag=MAIN

> PS. The end-result is the same when you change the eval below into a
> bareword function definition, but the symptoms up to that point are a
> wee bit different.
> 
> $ cat ~/test_something.sh
> #!/bin/sh
> 
> echo "hello ${1:-world}; my pid is: $$"
> 
> type bar baz foo
> 
> foo() {
>     eval "bar() { $_ $0 bar; }"
>     baz() { $_ $0 baz; bar; }
>     baz
> }
> 
> type bar baz foo
> 
> if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
>     foo
> fi
> $ sh ~/test_something.sh
> hello world; my pid is: 32706
> bar: not found
> baz: not found
> foo: not found
> foo is a shell function

I'm not sure I understand.  This is expected, isn't it?  When the "type"
is executed, foo has been defined but not called yet.  Therefore, the
eval constructs have not yet been run and thus neither bar() nor baz()
exist.

-- 
Julio Merino