c28181e26f
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 [ "$?" = "0" ] || return 1 And add a bit to the unit tests to ensure that "set -e" behaviour is enabled in .do files as we expect, and crash loudly otherwise. (This weird behaviour may only happen in some shells and not others.) Also, we had a "helpful" alias of redo() defined at the bottom of the file. Combined with the way we use '.' to source the .do files, this would make it not start a new shell just to run a recursive 'redo' command. It almost works, but this stupid "set -e" bug could cause a nested .do file to not honour "set -e" if someone ran "redo foo || exit 1" from inside a .do script. The performance optimization is clearly not worth it here, so rename it to _redo(); that causes it to actually re-exec the redo program (which is a symlink to minimal/do).
18 lines
446 B
Text
18 lines
446 B
Text
# tests that "set -e" works (.do scripts always run with -e set by default)
|
|
rm -f 000-set-minus-e/log
|
|
redo 000-set-minus-e/all
|
|
if [ "$(cat 000-set-minus-e/log)" != "ok" ]; then
|
|
echo "FATAL! .do file not run with 'set -e' in effect!" >&2
|
|
exit 5
|
|
fi
|
|
|
|
# builds 1xx*/all
|
|
/bin/ls 1[0-9][0-9]*/all.do |
|
|
sed 's/\.do$//' |
|
|
xargs redo
|
|
110-compile/hello >&2
|
|
|
|
# builds the rest
|
|
/bin/ls [2-9][0-9][0-9]*/all.do |
|
|
sed 's/\.do$//' |
|
|
xargs redo-ifchange
|