summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/t (unfollow)
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2021-12-22The fourth batchJunio C Hamano1-1/+33
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-17format-patch: mark rev_info with UNLEAKJunio C Hamano1-0/+1
The comand uses a single instance of rev_info on stack, makes a single revision traversal and exit. Mark the resources held by the rev_info structure with UNLEAK(). We do not do this at lower level in revision.c or cmd_log_walk(), as a new caller of the revision traversal API can make unbounded number of rev_info during a single run, and UNLEAK() would not a be suitable mechanism to deal with such a caller. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-15The third batchJunio C Hamano1-0/+65
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13git-apply: add --allow-empty flagJerry Zhang4-7/+30
Some users or scripts will pipe "git diff" output to "git apply" when replaying diffs or commits. In these cases, they will rely on the return value of "git apply" to know whether the diff was applied successfully. However, for empty commits, "git apply" will fail. This complicates scripts since they have to either buffer the diff and check its length, or run diff again with "exit-code", essentially doing the diff twice. Add the "--allow-empty" flag to "git apply" which allows it to handle both empty diffs and empty commits created by "git format-patch --always" by doing nothing and returning 0. Add tests for both with and without --allow-empty. Signed-off-by: Jerry Zhang <jerry@skydio.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13git-apply: add --quiet flagJerry Zhang2-2/+7
Replace OPT_VERBOSE with OPT_VERBOSITY. This adds a --quiet flag to "git apply" so the user can turn down the verbosity. Signed-off-by: Jerry Zhang <jerry@skydio.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: stop splitting "(..." into separate lines "(" and "..."Eric Sunshine9-35/+37
Because `sed` is line-oriented, for ease of implementation, when chainlint.sed encounters an opening subshell in which the first command is cuddled with the "(", it splits the line into two lines: one containing only "(", and the other containing whatever follows "(". This allows chainlint.sed to get by with a single set of regular expressions for matching shell statements rather than having to duplicate each expression (one set for matching non-cuddled statements, and one set for matching cuddled statements). However, although syntactically and semantically immaterial, this transformation has no value to test authors and might even confuse them into thinking that the linter is misbehaving by inserting (whitespace) line-noise into the shell code it is validating. Moreover, it also allows an implementation detail of chainlint.sed to seep into the chainlint self-test "expect" files, which potentially makes it difficult to reuse the self-tests should a more capable chainlint ever be developed. To address these concerns, stop splitting cuddled "(..." into two lines. Note that, as an implementation artifact, due to sed's line-oriented nature, this change inserts a blank line at output time just before the "(..." line is emitted. It would be possible to suppress this blank line but doing so would add a fair bit of complexity to chainlint.sed. Therefore, rather than suppressing the extra blank line, the Makefile's `check-chainlint` target which runs the chainlint self-tests is instead modified to ignore blank lines when comparing chainlint output against the self-test "expect" output. This is a reasonable compromise for two reasons. First, the purpose of the chainlint self-tests is to verify that the ?!AMP?! annotations are being correctly added; precise whitespace is immaterial. Second, by necessity, chainlint.sed itself already throws away all blank lines within subshells since, when checking for a broken &&-chain, it needs to check the final _statement_ in a subshell, not the final _line_ (which might be blank), thus it has never made any attempt to precisely reproduce blank lines in its output. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: swallow comments consistentlyEric Sunshine6-4/+52
When checking for broken a &&-chain, chainlint.sed knows that the final statement in a subshell should not end with `&&`, so it takes care to make a distinction between the final line which is an actual statement and any lines which may be mere comments preceding the closing ')'. As such, it swallows comment lines so that they do not interfere with the &&-chain check. However, since `sed` does not provide any sort of real recursion, chainlint.sed only checks &&-chains in subshells one level deep; it doesn't do any checking in deeper subshells or in `{...}` blocks within subshells. Furthermore, on account of potential implementation complexity, it doesn't check &&-chains within `case` arms. Due to an oversight, it also doesn't swallow comments inside deep subshells, `{...}` blocks, or `case` statements, which makes its output inconsistent (swallowing comments in some cases but not others). Unfortunately, this inconsistency seeps into the chainlint self-test "expect" files, which potentially makes it difficult to reuse the self-tests should a more capable chainlint ever be developed. Therefore, teach chainlint.sed to consistently swallow comments in all cases. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: stop throwing away here-doc tagsEric Sunshine11-29/+35
The purpose of chainlint is to highlight problems it finds in test code by inserting annotations at the location of each problem. Arbitrarily eliding bits of the code it is checking is not helpful, yet this is exactly what chainlint.sed does by cavalierly and unnecessarily dropping the here-doc operator and tag; i.e. `cat <<TAG` becomes simply `cat` in the output. This behavior can make it more difficult for the test writer to align the annotated output of chainlint.sed with the original test code. Address this by retaining here-doc tags. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: don't mistake `<< word` in string as here-doc operatorEric Sunshine3-2/+36
Tighten here-doc recognition to prevent it from being fooled by text which looks like a here-doc operator but happens merely to be the content of a string, such as this real-world case from t7201: echo "<<<<<<< ours" && echo ourside && echo "=======" && echo theirside && echo ">>>>>>> theirs" This problem went unnoticed because chainlint.sed is not a real parser, but rather applies heuristics to pretend to understand shell code. In this case, it saw what it thought was a here-doc operator (`<< ours`), and fell off the end of the test looking for the closing tag "ours" which it never found, thus swallowed the remainder of the test without checking it for &&-chain breakage. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: make here-doc "<<-" operator recognition more POSIX-likeEric Sunshine1-4/+4
According to POSIX, "<<" and "<<-" are distinct shell operators. For the latter to be recognized, no whitespace is allowed before the "-", though whitespace is allowed after the operator. However, the chainlint patterns which identify here-docs are both too loose and too tight, incorrectly allowing whitespace between "<<" and "-" but disallowing it between "-" and the here-doc tag. Fix the patterns to better match POSIX. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: drop subshell-closing ">" annotationEric Sunshine39-89/+80
chainlint.sed inserts a ">" annotation at the beginning of a line to signal that its heuristics have identified an end-of-subshell. This was useful as a debugging aid during development of the script, but it has no value to test writers and might even confuse them into thinking that the linter is misbehaving by inserting line-noise into the shell code it is validating. Moreover, its presence also potentially makes it difficult to reuse the chainlint self-test "expect" output should a more capable linter ever be developed. Therefore, drop the ">" annotation. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: drop unnecessary distinction between ?!AMP?! and ?!SEMI?!Eric Sunshine5-25/+24
>From inception, when chainlint.sed encountered a line using semicolon to separate commands rather than `&&`, it would insert a ?!SEMI?! annotation at the beginning of the line rather ?!AMP?! even though the &&-chain is also broken by the semicolon. Given a line such as: ?!SEMI?! cmd1; cmd2 && the ?!SEMI?! annotation makes it easier to see what the problem is than if the output had been: ?!AMP?! cmd1; cmd2 && which might confuse the test author into thinking that the linter is broken (since the line clearly ends with `&&`). However, now that the ?!AMP?! an ?!SEMI?! annotations are inserted at the point of breakage rather than at the beginning of the line, and taking into account that both represent a broken &&-chain, there is little reason to distinguish between the two. Using ?!AMP?! alone is sufficient to point the test author at the problem. For instance, in: cmd1; ?!AMP?! cmd2 && cmd3 it is clear that the &&-chain is broken between `cmd1` and `cmd2`. Likewise, in: cmd1 && cmd2 ?!AMP?! cmd3 it is clear that the &&-chain is broken between `cmd2` and `cmd3`. Finally, in: cmd1; ?!AMP?! cmd2 ?!AMP?! cmd3 it is clear that the &&-chain is broken between each command. Hence, there is no longer a good reason to make a distinction between a broken &&-chain due to a semicolon and a broken chain due to a missing `&&` at end-of-line. Therefore, drop the ?!SEMI?! annotation and use ?!AMP?! exclusively. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: tolerate harmless ";" at end of last line in blockEric Sunshine2-7/+8
chainlint.sed flags ";" when used as a command terminator since it breaks the &&-chain, thus can allow failures to go undetected. However, when a command terminated by ";" is the last command in the body of a compound statement, such as `command-2` in: if test $# -gt 1 then command-1 && command-2; fi then the ";" is harmless and the exit code from `command-2` is passed through untouched and becomes the exit code of the compound statement, as if the ";" was not present. Therefore, tolerate a trailing ";" in this position rather than complaining about broken &&-chain. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: improve ?!SEMI?! placement accuracyEric Sunshine5-18/+18
When chainlint.sed detects commands separated by a semicolon rather than by `&&`, it places a ?!SEMI?! annotation at the beginning of the line. However, this is an unusual location for programmers accustomed to error messages (from compilers, for instance) indicating the exact point of the problem. Therefore, relocate the ?!SEMI?! annotation to the location of the semicolon in order to better direct the programmer's attention to the source of the problem. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13chainlint.sed: improve ?!AMP?! placement accuracyEric Sunshine23-38/+38
When chainlint.sed detects a broken &&-chain, it places an ?!AMP?! annotation at the beginning of the line. However, this is an unusual location for programmers accustomed to error messages (from compilers, for instance) indicating the exact point of the problem. Therefore, relocate the ?!AMP?! annotation to the end of the line in order to better direct the programmer's attention to the source of the problem. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t/Makefile: optimize chainlint self-testEric Sunshine1-6/+4
Rather than running `chainlint` and `diff` once per self-test -- which may become expensive as more tests are added -- instead run `chainlint` a single time over all tests bodies collectively and compare the result to the collective "expected" output. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t/chainlint/one-liner: avoid overly intimate chainlint.sed knowledgeEric Sunshine2-2/+2
The purpose of chainlint.sed is to detect &&-chain breakage only within subshells (one level deep); it doesn't bother checking for top-level &&-chain breakage since the &&-chain checker built into t/test-lib.sh should detect broken &&-chains outside of subshells by making them magically exit with code 117. Unfortunately, one of the chainlint.sed self-tests has overly intimate knowledge of this particular division of responsibilities and only cares about what chainlint.sed itself will produce, while ignoring the fact that a more all-encompassing linter would complain about a broken &&-chain outside the subshell. This makes it difficult to re-use the test with a more capable chainlint implementation should one ever be developed. Therefore, adjust the test and its "expected" output to avoid being specific to the tunnel-vision of this one implementation. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t/chainlint/*.test: generalize self-test commentaryEric Sunshine6-9/+6
The purpose of chainlint.sed is to detect &&-chain breakage only within subshells (one level deep); it doesn't bother checking for top-level &&-chain breakage since the &&-chain checker built into t/test-lib.sh should detect broken &&-chains outside of subshells by making them magically exit with code 117. However, this division of labor may not always be the case if a more capable chainlint implementation is ever developed. Beyond that, due to being sed-based and due to its use of heuristics, chainlint.sed has several limitations (such as being unable to detect &&-chain breakage in subshells more than one level deep since it only manually emulates recursion into a subshell). Some of the comments in the chainlint self-tests unnecessarily reflect the limitations of chainlint.sed even though those limitations are not what is being tested. Therefore, simplify and generalize the comments to explain only what is being tested, thus ensuring that they won't become outdated if a more capable chainlint is ever developed. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t/chainlint/*.test: fix invalid test cases due to mixing quote typesEric Sunshine20-70/+38
The chainlint self-test code snippets are supposed to represent the body of a test_expect_success() or test_expect_failure(), yet the contents of a few tests would have caused the shell to report syntax errors had they been real test bodies due to the mix of single- and double-quotes. Although chainlint.sed, with its simplistic heuristics, is blind to this problem, a future more robust chainlint implementation might not have such a limitation. Therefore, stop mixing quote types haphazardly in those tests and unify quoting throughout. While at it, drop chunks of tests which merely repeat what is already tested elsewhere but with alternative quotes. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t/chainlint/*.test: don't use invalid shell syntaxEric Sunshine3-4/+6
The chainlint self-test code snippets are supposed to represent the body of a test_expect_success() or test_expect_failure(), yet the contents of these tests would have caused the shell to report syntax errors had they been real test bodies. Although chainlint.sed, with its simplistic heuristics, is blind to these syntactic problems, a future more robust chainlint implementation might not have such a limitation, so make these snippets syntactically valid. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t6000-t9999: detect and signal failure within loopEric Sunshine32-65/+65
Failures within `for` and `while` loops can go unnoticed if not detected and signaled manually since the loop itself does not abort when a contained command fails, nor will a failure necessarily be detected when the loop finishes since the loop returns the exit code of the last command it ran on the final iteration, which may not be the command which failed. Therefore, detect and signal failures manually within loops using the idiom `|| return 1` (or `|| exit 1` within subshells). Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t5000-t5999: detect and signal failure within loopEric Sunshine20-50/+50
Failures within `for` and `while` loops can go unnoticed if not detected and signaled manually since the loop itself does not abort when a contained command fails, nor will a failure necessarily be detected when the loop finishes since the loop returns the exit code of the last command it ran on the final iteration, which may not be the command which failed. Therefore, detect and signal failures manually within loops using the idiom `|| return 1` (or `|| exit 1` within subshells). Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t4000-t4999: detect and signal failure within loopEric Sunshine16-38/+38
Failures within `for` and `while` loops can go unnoticed if not detected and signaled manually since the loop itself does not abort when a contained command fails, nor will a failure necessarily be detected when the loop finishes since the loop returns the exit code of the last command it ran on the final iteration, which may not be the command which failed. Therefore, detect and signal failures manually within loops using the idiom `|| return 1` (or `|| exit 1` within subshells). Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t0000-t3999: detect and signal failure within loopEric Sunshine31-55/+55
Failures within `for` and `while` loops can go unnoticed if not detected and signaled manually since the loop itself does not abort when a contained command fails, nor will a failure necessarily be detected when the loop finishes since the loop returns the exit code of the last command it ran on the final iteration, which may not be the command which failed. Therefore, detect and signal failures manually within loops using the idiom `|| return 1` (or `|| exit 1` within subshells). Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13tests: simplify by dropping unnecessary `for` loopsEric Sunshine7-50/+14
Rather than manually looping over a set of items and plugging those items into a template string which is printed repeatedly, achieve the same effect by taking advantage of `printf` which loops over its arguments automatically. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13tests: apply modern idiom for exiting loop upon failureEric Sunshine3-25/+12
Rather than maintaining a flag indicating a failure within a loop and aborting the test when the loop ends if the flag is set, modern practice is to signal the failure immediately by exiting the loop early via `return 1` (or `exit 1` if inside a subshell). Simplify these loops by following the modern idiom. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13tests: apply modern idiom for signaling test failureEric Sunshine3-6/+6
Simplify the way these tests signal failure by employing the modern idiom of making the `if` or `case` statement resolve to false when an error is detected. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13tests: fix broken &&-chains in `{...}` groupsEric Sunshine19-50/+53
The top-level &&-chain checker built into t/test-lib.sh causes tests to magically exit with code 117 if the &&-chain is broken. However, it has the shortcoming that the magic does not work within `{...}` groups, `(...)` subshells, `$(...)` substitutions, or within bodies of compound statements, such as `if`, `for`, `while`, `case`, etc. `chainlint.sed` partly fills in the gap by catching broken &&-chains in `(...)` subshells, but bugs can still lurk behind broken &&-chains in the other cases. Fix broken &&-chains in `{...}` groups in order to reduce the number of possible lurking bugs. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13tests: fix broken &&-chains in `$(...)` command substitutionsEric Sunshine6-11/+11
The top-level &&-chain checker built into t/test-lib.sh causes tests to magically exit with code 117 if the &&-chain is broken. However, it has the shortcoming that the magic does not work within `{...}` groups, `(...)` subshells, `$(...)` substitutions, or within bodies of compound statements, such as `if`, `for`, `while`, `case`, etc. `chainlint.sed` partly fills in the gap by catching broken &&-chains in `(...)` subshells, but bugs can still lurk behind broken &&-chains in the other cases. Fix broken &&-chains in `$(...)` command substitutions in order to reduce the number of possible lurking bugs. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13tests: fix broken &&-chains in compound statementsEric Sunshine28-89/+95
The top-level &&-chain checker built into t/test-lib.sh causes tests to magically exit with code 117 if the &&-chain is broken. However, it has the shortcoming that the magic does not work within `{...}` groups, `(...)` subshells, `$(...)` substitutions, or within bodies of compound statements, such as `if`, `for`, `while`, `case`, etc. `chainlint.sed` partly fills in the gap by catching broken &&-chains in `(...)` subshells, but bugs can still lurk behind broken &&-chains in the other cases. Fix broken &&-chains in compound statements in order to reduce the number of possible lurking bugs. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13tests: use test_write_lines() to generate line-oriented outputEric Sunshine26-170/+106
Take advantage of test_write_lines() to generate line-oriented output rather than using for-loops or a series of `echo` commands. Not only is test_write_lines() a natural fit for such a task, but there is less opportunity for a broken &&-chain. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13tests: simplify construction of large blocks of textEric Sunshine7-202/+205
Take advantage of here-docs to create large blocks of text rather than using a series of `echo` statements. Not only are here-docs a natural fit for such a task, but there is less opportunity for a broken &&-chain. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t9107: use shell parameter expansion to avoid breaking &&-chainEric Sunshine1-4/+4
This test intentionally breaks the &&-chain when using `expr` to parse "[<path>]:<ref>" since the pattern matching operation will return 1 (failure) when <path> is empty even though an empty <path> is legitimate in this test and should not cause the test to fail. However, it is possible to parse the input without breaking the &&-chain by using shell parameter expansion (i.e. `${i%%...}`). Other ways to avoid the problem would be `{ expr $i : ... ||:; }` or test_might_fail(), however, parameter expansion seems simplest. IMPLEMENTATION NOTE The rewritten `if` expression: if test "$ref" = "${ref#refs/remotes/}"`; then continue; fi is perhaps a bit subtle. At first glance, it looks like it will `continue` the loop if $ref starts with "refs/remotes/", but in fact it's the opposite: the loop will `continue` if $ref does not start with "refs/remotes/". In the original, `expr` would only match if the ref started with "refs/remotes/", and $ref would end up empty if it didn't, so `test -z` would `continue` the loop if the ref did not start with "refs/remotes/". With parameter expansion, ${ref#refs/remotes/} attempts to strip "refs/remotes/" from $ref. If it fails, meaning that $ref does not start with "refs/remotes/", then the expansion will just be $ref unchanged, and it will `continue` the loop. On the other hand, if stripping succeeds, meaning that $ref begins with "refs/remotes/", then the expansion will be the value of $ref with "refs/remotes/" removed, hence `continue` will not be taken. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t6300: make `%(raw:size) --shell` test more robustEric Sunshine1-4/+1
This test populates its `expect` file solely by appending content but fails to ensure that the file starts out empty. The test succeeds only because no earlier test populated a file of the exact same name, however this is an accident waiting to happen. Make the test more robust by ensuring that it contains exactly the intended content. While at it, simplify the implementation via a straightforward `sed` application and by avoiding dropping out of the single-quote context within the test body (thus eliminating a hard-to-digest combination of apostrophes and backslashes). Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t5516: drop unnecessary subshell and command invocationEric Sunshine1-4/+1
To create its "expect" file, this test pipes into `sort` the output of `git for-each-ref` and a copy of that same output but with a minor textual transformation applied. To do so, it employs a subshell and commands `cat` and `sed` even though the same result can be accomplished by `sed` alone (without a subshell). Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t4202: clarify intent by creating expected content less cleverlyEric Sunshine1-21/+21
Several tests assign the output of `$(...)` command substitution to an "expect" variable, taking advantage of the fact that `$(...)` folds out the final line terminator while leaving internal line terminators intact. They do this because the "actual" string with which "expect" will be compared is shaped the same way. However, this intent (having internal line terminators, but no final line terminator) is not necessarily obvious at first glance and may confuse casual readers. The intent can be made more obvious by using `printf` instead, with which line termination is stated clearly: printf "sixth\nthird" In fact, many other tests in this script already use `printf` for precisely this purpose, thus it is an established pattern. Therefore, convert these tests to employ `printf`, as well. While at it, modernize the tests to use test_cmp() to compare the expected and actual output rather than using the semi-deprecated `verbose test "$x" = "$y"`. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t1020: avoid aborting entire test script when one test failsEric Sunshine1-3/+3
Although `exit 1` is the proper way to signal a test failure from within a subshell, its use outside any subshell should be avoided since it aborts the entire script rather than aborting only the failed test. Instead, a simple `return 1` is the proper idiom for signaling failure outside a subshell since it aborts only the test in question, not the entire script. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-13t1010: fix unnoticed failure on WindowsEric Sunshine1-2/+2
On Microsoft Windows, a directory name should never end with a period. Quoting from Microsoft documentation[1]: Do not end a file or directory name with a space or a period. Although the underlying file system may support such names, the Windows shell and user interface does not. Naming a directory with a trailing period is indeed perilous: % git init foo % cd foo % mkdir a. % git status warning: could not open directory 'a./': No such file or directory The t1010 "setup" test: for d in a a. a0 do mkdir "$d" && echo "$d/one" >"$d/one" && git add "$d" done && runs afoul of this Windows limitation, as can be observed when running the test verbosely: error: open("a./one"): No such file or directory error: unable to index file 'a./one' fatal: adding files failed The reason this problem has gone unnoticed for so long is twofold. First, the failed `git add` is swallowed silently because the loop is not terminated explicitly by `|| return 1` to signal the failure. Second, none of the tests in this script care about the literal directory names ("a", "a.", "a0") or the specific number of tree entries. They care instead about the order of entries in the tree, and that the tree synthesized in the index and created by `git write-tree` matches the tree created by the output of `git ls-tree` fed into `git mktree`, thus the absence of "a./one" has no impact on the tests. Skipping these tests on Windows by, for instance, checking the FUNNYNAMES predicate would avoid the problem, however, the funny-looking name is not what is being tested here. Rather, the tests are about checking that `git mktree` produces stable results for various input conditions, such as when the input order is not consistent or when an object is missing. Therefore, resolve the problem simply by using a directory name which is legal on Windows and sorts the same as "a.". While at it, add the missing `|| return 1` to the loop body in order to catch this sort of problem in the future. [1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/naming-a-file Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-10The second batchJunio C Hamano1-0/+99
2021-12-09ssh signing: verify ssh-keygen in test prereqFabian Stelzer1-13/+40
Do a full ssh signing, find-principals and verify operation in the test prereq's to make sure ssh-keygen works as expected. Only generating the keys and verifying its presence is not sufficient in some situations. One example was ssh-keygen creating unusable ssh keys in cygwin because of unsafe default permissions for the key files. The other a broken openssh 8.7 that segfaulted on any find-principals operation. This extended prereq check avoids future test breakages in case ssh-keygen or any environment behaviour changes. Signed-off-by: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-09ssh signing: make fmt-merge-msg consider key lifetimeFabian Stelzer2-0/+59
Set the payload_type for check_signature() when generating merge messages to verify merged tags signatures key lifetimes. Implements the same tests as for verify-commit. Signed-off-by: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-09ssh signing: make verify-tag consider key lifetimeFabian Stelzer2-0/+43
Set the payload_type for check_signature() when calling verify-tag. Implements the same tests as for verify-commit. Signed-off-by: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-09ssh signing: make git log verify key lifetimeFabian Stelzer2-0/+45
Set the payload_type for check_signature() when calling git log. Implements the same tests as for verify-commit. Signed-off-by: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-09ssh signing: make verify-commit consider key lifetimeFabian Stelzer5-0/+110
If valid-before/after dates are configured for this signatures key in the allowedSigners file then the verification should check if the key was valid at the time the commit was made. This allows for graceful key rollover and revoking keys without invalidating all previous commits. This feature needs openssh > 8.8. Older ssh-keygen versions will simply ignore this flag and use the current time. Strictly speaking this feature is available in 8.7, but since 8.7 has a bug that makes it unusable in another needed call we require 8.8. Timestamp information is present on most invocations of check_signature. However signer ident is not. We will need the signer email / name to be able to implement "Trust on first use" functionality later. Since the payload contains all necessary information we can parse it from there. The caller only needs to provide us some info about the payload by setting payload_type in the signature_check struct. - Add payload_type field & enum and payload_timestamp to struct signature_check - Populate the timestamp when not already set if we know about the payload type - Pass -Overify-time={payload_timestamp} in the users timezone to all ssh-keygen verification calls - Set the payload type when verifying commits - Add tests for expired, not yet valid and keys having a commit date outside of key validity as well as within Signed-off-by: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-09ssh signing: add key lifetime test prereqsFabian Stelzer1-1/+18
if ssh-keygen supports -Overify-time, add test keys marked as expired, not yet valid and valid both within the test_tick timeframe and outside of it. Signed-off-by: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-09ssh signing: use sigc struct to pass payloadFabian Stelzer7-35/+35
To be able to extend the payload metadata with things like its creation timestamp or the creators ident we remove the payload parameters to check_signature() and use the already existing sigc->payload field instead, only adding the length field to the struct. This also allows us to get rid of the xmemdupz() calls in the verify functions. Since sigc is now used to input data as well as output the result move it to the front of the function list. - Add payload_length to struct signature_check - Populate sigc.payload/payload_len on all call sites - Remove payload parameters to check_signature() - Remove payload parameters to internal verify_* functions and use sigc instead - Remove xmemdupz() used for verbose output since payload is now already populated. Signed-off-by: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-09t/fmt-merge-msg: make gpgssh tests more specificFabian Stelzer1-0/+2
Some GPGSSH fmt-merge-msg tests were only grepping for failed/successful signature validation and not checking for the tag in the resulting merge message. Add the missing grep for it. Signed-off-by: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-09t/fmt-merge-msg: do not redirect stderrFabian Stelzer1-4/+4
All the GPG and GPGSSH tests are redirecing stdout as well as stderr to `actual` and grep for success/failure over the resulting file. However, no output is printed on stderr and we do not need to include it in the grep. Signed-off-by: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-09t/lib-pager: use sane_unset() to avoid breaking &&-chainEric Sunshine1-1/+1
This test intentionally breaks the &&-chain following `unset` since it doesn't know if `unset` will succeed or fail and doesn't want a local `unset` failure to abort the test overall. We can do better by using sane_unset() which can be linked into the &&-chain as usual. Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-12-08tmp-objdir: disable ref updates when replacing the primary odbNeeraj Singh6-1/+21
When creating a subprocess with a temporary ODB, we set the GIT_QUARANTINE_ENVIRONMENT env var to tell child Git processes not to update refs, since the tmp-objdir may go away. Introduce a similar mechanism for in-process temporary ODBs when we call tmp_objdir_replace_primary_odb. Now both mechanisms set the disable_ref_updates flag on the odb, which is queried by the ref_transaction_prepare function. Peff's test case [1] was invoking ref updates via the cachetextconv setting. That particular code silently does nothing when a ref update is forbidden. See the call to notes_cache_put in fill_textconv where errors are ignored. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/YVOn3hDsb5pnxR53@coredump.intra.peff.net/ Reported-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Singh <neerajsi@microsoft.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>