t: wrap complicated expect_code users in a block

If we are expecting a command to produce a particular exit
code, we can use test_expect_code. However, some cases are
more complicated, and want to accept one of a range of exit
codes. For these, we end up with something like:

  cmd;
  case "$?" in
  ...

That unfortunately breaks the &&-chain and fools
--chain-lint. Since these special cases are so few, we can
wrap them in a block, like this:

  { cmd; ret=$?; } &&
  case "$ret" in
  ...

This accomplishes the same thing, and retains the &&-chain
(the exit status fed to the && is that of the assignment,
which should always be true). It's technically longer, but
it is probably a good thing for unusual code like this to
stand out.

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/t/t5004-archive-corner-cases.sh b/t/t5004-archive-corner-cases.sh
index 305bcac6b..654addaae 100755
--- a/t/t5004-archive-corner-cases.sh
+++ b/t/t5004-archive-corner-cases.sh
@@ -66,8 +66,10 @@ test_expect_success UNZIP 'zip archive of empty tree is empty' '
 	# handle the empty repo at all, making our later check of its exit code
 	# a no-op). But we cannot do anything reasonable except skip the test
 	# on such platforms anyway, and this is the moral equivalent.
-	"$GIT_UNZIP" "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t5004/empty.zip
-	expect_code=$?
+	{
+		"$GIT_UNZIP" "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t5004/empty.zip
+		expect_code=$?
+	} &&
 
 	git archive --format=zip HEAD >empty.zip &&
 	make_dir extract &&