e44f15ba3e
The annotations emitted by chainlint to indicate detected problems are overly terse, so much so that developers new to the project -- those who should most benefit from the linting -- may find them baffling. For instance, although the author of chainlint and seasoned Git developers may understand that "?!AMP?!" is an abbreviation of "ampersand" and indicates a break in the &&-chain, this may not be obvious to newcomers. The "?!LOOP?!" case is particularly serious because that terse single word does nothing to convey that the loop body should end with "|| return 1" (or "|| exit 1" in a subshell) to ensure that a failing command in the body aborts the loop immediately. Moreover, unlike &&-chaining which is ubiquitous in Git tests, the "|| return 1" idiom is relatively infrequent, thus may be harder for a newcomer to discover by consulting nearby code. Address these shortcomings by emitting human-readable messages which both explain the problem and give a strong hint about how to correct it. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
28 lines
796 B
Plaintext
28 lines
796 B
Plaintext
2 git config filter.rot13.smudge ./rot13.sh &&
|
|
3 git config filter.rot13.clean ./rot13.sh &&
|
|
4
|
|
5 {
|
|
6 echo "*.t filter=rot13" ?!LINT: missing '&&'?!
|
|
7 echo "*.i ident"
|
|
8 } >.gitattributes &&
|
|
9
|
|
10 {
|
|
11 echo a b c d e f g h i j k l m ?!LINT: missing '&&'?!
|
|
12 echo n o p q r s t u v w x y z ?!LINT: missing '&&'?!
|
|
13 echo '$Id$'
|
|
14 } >test &&
|
|
15 cat test >test.t &&
|
|
16 cat test >test.o &&
|
|
17 cat test >test.i &&
|
|
18 git add test test.t test.i &&
|
|
19 rm -f test test.t test.i &&
|
|
20 git checkout -- test test.t test.i &&
|
|
21
|
|
22 echo "content-test2" >test2.o &&
|
|
23 echo "content-test3 - filename with special characters" >"test3 'sq',$x=.o" ?!LINT: missing '&&'?!
|
|
24
|
|
25 downstream_url_for_sed=$(
|
|
26 printf "%sn" "$downstream_url" |
|
|
27 sed -e 's/\/\\/g' -e 's/[[/.*^$]/\&/g'
|
|
28 )
|