[RFC kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 00/14] add shellcheck support

[Thomas Huth]

On 16/04/2024 05.26, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Mon Apr 15, 2024 at 9:59 PM AEST, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 06/04/2024 14.38, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>>> Tree here
>>>
>>> https://gitlab.com/npiggin/kvm-unit-tests/-/tree/shellcheck
>>>
>>> Again on top of the "v8 migration, powerpc improvements" series. I
>>> don't plan to rebase the other way around since it's a lot of work.
>>> So this is still in RFC until the other big series gets merged.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Andrew for a lot of review. A submitted the likely s390x
>>> bugs separately ahead of this series, and also disabled one of the
>>> tests and dropped its fix patch as-per review comments. Hence 3 fewer
>>> patches. Other than that, since last post:
>>>
>>> * Tidied commit messages and added some of Andrew's comments.
>>> * Removed the "SC2034 unused variable" blanket disable, and just
>>>     suppressed the config.mak and a couple of other warnings.
>>> * Blanket disabled "SC2235 Use { ..; } instead of (..)" and dropped
>>>     the fix for it.
>>> * Change warning suppression comments as per Andrew's review, also
>>>     mention in the new unittests doc about the "check =" option not
>>>     allowing whitespace etc in the name since we don't cope with that.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> Nicholas Piggin (14):
>>>     Add initial shellcheck checking
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2223
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2295
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2094
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2006
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2155
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2143
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2013
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2145
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2124
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2294
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2178
>>>     shellcheck: Fix SC2048
>>>     shellcheck: Suppress various messages
>>
>> I went ahead and pushed a bunch of your patches to the k-u-t master branch
>> now. However, there were also some patches which did not apply cleanly to
>> master anymore, so please rebase the remaining patches and then send them again.
> 
> Hey Thomas,
> 
> Yeah the sc patches were based on top of the big series, so some
> collisions expected. I'll look at rebasing.

Ah, ok, we can also try to get in the big series first ... I just lack 
enough spare time for reviewing currently, so it might take a while :-/

  Thomas