Based on the earlier t/000-set-minus-e bug in minimal/do on some
shells, let's add some extra tests that reveal the weirdness on those
shells. Unfortunately because they are so popular (including bash and
zsh), we can't reject them outright for failing this one.
While we're here, add a new return code, "skip", which notes that a
test has failed but is not important enough to be considered a warning
or failure. Previously we just had these commented out, which is not
quite obvious enough.
...and I updated a few comments while reviewing some of the older
tests.
The >& form is only for file descriptors, passing a file name there is
a bash extension.
$ /bin/dash -c 'echo foo >&/dev/null'
/bin/dash: 1: Syntax error: Bad fd number
If you run something like
blah_function || return 1
then everything even *inside* blah_function is *not* subject to the "set -e"
that would otherwise be in effect. That's true even for ". subfile" inside
blah_function - which is exactly how minimal/do runs .do files.
Instead, rewrite it as
blah_function
[ "$?" = "0" ] || return 1
And add a bit to the unit tests to ensure that "set -e" behaviour is enabled
in .do files as we expect, and crash loudly otherwise.
(This weird behaviour may only happen in some shells and not others.)
Also, we had a "helpful" alias of redo() defined at the bottom of the file.
Combined with the way we use '.' to source the .do files, this would make it
not start a new shell just to run a recursive 'redo' command. It almost
works, but this stupid "set -e" bug could cause a nested .do file to not
honour "set -e" if someone ran "redo foo || exit 1" from inside a .do
script. The performance optimization is clearly not worth it here, so
rename it to _redo(); that causes it to actually re-exec the redo program
(which is a symlink to minimal/do).
