Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] cache-tree tests: use a sub-shell with less indirection

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 04:35:45PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh b/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
index 354b7f15f7..2e3efeb80e 100755
--- a/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
+++ b/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh

@@ -27,20 +27,15 @@ generate_expected_cache_tree_rec () {
 	printf "SHA $dir (%d entries, %d subtrees)\n" "$entries" "$subtree_count" &&
 	for subtree in $subtrees
 	do
-		cd "$subtree"
-		generate_expected_cache_tree_rec "$dir$subtree" || return 1
-		cd ..
+		(
+			cd "$subtree"
+			generate_expected_cache_tree_rec "$dir$subtree" || return 1
+		)
 	done

We don't check that "cd" worked either before or after your patch.
Should we?

After your patch, we "return" from inside a subshell. Is that portable?
ISTR issues around that before, but it just have been when we are not in
a function at all. Still, I wonder if:

  for ...
  do
	(
		cd "$subtree" &&
		generate_expected_cache_tree_rec "$dir$subtree"
	) || return 1
  done

Thanks, I missed that bogus/confusing return.

might be more obvious.

quoted

-generate_expected_cache_tree () {
-	(
-		generate_expected_cache_tree_rec
-	)
-}

I wondered what the "rec" was for, but I guess it is "recurse". Not a
problem to keep it, but I wonder if it could be dropped in the name of
shortness/simplicity (not worth a re-roll for sure, but maybe worth
doing so if you re-roll for the above issues).

-Peff