[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 5:35 AM Robert Elz <kre%munnari.oz.au@localhost> wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR bin/51667; it has been noted by GNATS.
> From: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
> To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: bin/51667
> Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2018 03:31:33 +0700
> This is almost certainly because atf_check is just a shell function that
> calls atf_fail (if the checks fail), and atf_fail is just another shell
> which (more or less) just does exit 1.
> ie: if the test is to fail, the shell running it exits with a "failed"
> Unfortunately, that is the shell running atf_fail (or atf_check) - some
> child sub-shell exiting with a failure status will only cause the correct
> behaviour for the test if the actual shell running the test also exits.
> In a pipeline, with /bin/sh (as allowed by posix, as it was the way the
> original Bourne sh did things) all the processes are run in a sub-shell
> (this is the same reason that
> some_command | while whatever
> neve results in var in the parent shell being set - the assignment
> in the sub-shell.
> That is, the sub-shell exits 1, causing a 1 exit status from the pipeline
> to be 1, but beyond that, the function just keeps on running.
> The same effect would be observed if one wanted to try
> (atf-check -s exit:0 false)
> false exits with status 1, the "exit:0" test fails, so the test containg
> check should fail, but it will not, because only the sub-shell exited,
> the one running the test.
> I don't think there is anything that can be done about this, aside from
> just documenting it perhaps. The alternative would be a major
> re-write of ATF.
> I would suggest closing this PR as "sh*t happens, can't be avoided"
Thank you for the explanation. I got it.
I'm ok to close this PR with "won't fix" because there is a workaround.
Main Index |
Thread Index |