Re: SIGPIPE in TAP tests

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 04:19:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> If SIGPIPE is ignored then test output just stops after generating the
>> FATAL message. Oops.
>
> You mean "If SIGPIPE is not ignored ...", right?

Yes, sorry.

>> > To fix the actual failures, we can cease sending "SELECT 1"; it's enough to
>> > disconnect immediately. Patch attached.
>>
>> Perhaps you could use an empty string instead? I feel a bit uneasy
>> about passing an undefined object to IPC::Run::run.
>
> IPC::Run documents the equivalence of undef and '' in this context; search for
> "close a child processes stdin" in
> http://search.cpan.org/~rbs/IPC-Run-0.78/lib/IPC/Run.pm. Thus, I expect both
> spellings to work reliably, and I find "undef" slightly more evocative.

Thanks, I missed this bit. No objections to use undef then.
--
Michael