git-commit-vandalism/t/t5605-clone-local.sh

145 lines
3.6 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
test_description='test local clone'
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main
tests: mark tests relying on the current default for `init.defaultBranch` In addition to the manual adjustment to let the `linux-gcc` CI job run the test suite with `master` and then with `main`, this patch makes sure that GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME is set in all test scripts that currently rely on the initial branch name being `master by default. To determine which test scripts to mark up, the first step was to force-set the default branch name to `master` in - all test scripts that contain the keyword `master`, - t4211, which expects `t/t4211/history.export` with a hard-coded ref to initialize the default branch, - t5560 because it sources `t/t556x_common` which uses `master`, - t8002 and t8012 because both source `t/annotate-tests.sh` which also uses `master`) This trick was performed by this command: $ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/\(test-lib\|lib-\(bash\|cvs\|git-svn\)\|gitweb-lib\)\.sh$/i\ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\ ' $(git grep -l master t/t[0-9]*.sh) \ t/t4211*.sh t/t5560*.sh t/t8002*.sh t/t8012*.sh After that, careful, manual inspection revealed that some of the test scripts containing the needle `master` do not actually rely on a specific default branch name: either they mention `master` only in a comment, or they initialize that branch specificially, or they do not actually refer to the current default branch. Therefore, the aforementioned modification was undone in those test scripts thusly: $ git checkout HEAD -- \ t/t0027-auto-crlf.sh t/t0060-path-utils.sh \ t/t1011-read-tree-sparse-checkout.sh \ t/t1305-config-include.sh t/t1309-early-config.sh \ t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh t/t1450-fsck.sh \ t/t2024-checkout-dwim.sh \ t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh \ t/t3040-subprojects-basic.sh t/t3301-notes.sh \ t/t3308-notes-merge.sh t/t3423-rebase-reword.sh \ t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh \ t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh t/t4257-am-interactive.sh \ t/t5323-pack-redundant.sh t/t5401-update-hooks.sh \ t/t5511-refspec.sh t/t5526-fetch-submodules.sh \ t/t5529-push-errors.sh t/t5530-upload-pack-error.sh \ t/t5548-push-porcelain.sh \ t/t5552-skipping-fetch-negotiator.sh \ t/t5572-pull-submodule.sh t/t5608-clone-2gb.sh \ t/t5614-clone-submodules-shallow.sh \ t/t7508-status.sh t/t7606-merge-custom.sh \ t/t9302-fast-import-unpack-limit.sh We excluded one set of test scripts in these commands, though: the range of `git p4` tests. The reason? `git p4` stores the (foreign) remote branch in the branch called `p4/master`, which is obviously not the default branch. Manual analysis revealed that only five of these tests actually require a specific default branch name to pass; They were modified thusly: $ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/lib-git-p4\.sh$/i\ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\ ' t/t980[0167]*.sh t/t9811*.sh Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-19 00:44:19 +01:00
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME
. ./test-lib.sh
repo_is_hardlinked() {
find "$1/objects" -type f -links 1 >output &&
test_line_count = 0 output
}
test_expect_success 'preparing origin repository' '
: >file && git add . && git commit -m1 &&
git clone --bare . a.git &&
git clone --bare . x &&
test "$(cd a.git && git config --bool core.bare)" = true &&
test "$(cd x && git config --bool core.bare)" = true &&
git bundle create b1.bundle --all &&
git bundle create b2.bundle main &&
mkdir dir &&
cp b1.bundle dir/b3 &&
cp b1.bundle b4
'
test_expect_success 'local clone without .git suffix' '
git clone -l -s a b &&
(cd b &&
test "$(git config --bool core.bare)" = false &&
git fetch)
'
test_expect_success 'local clone with .git suffix' '
git clone -l -s a.git c &&
(cd c && git fetch)
'
test_expect_success 'local clone from x' '
git clone -l -s x y &&
(cd y && git fetch)
'
test_expect_success 'local clone from x.git that does not exist' '
test_must_fail git clone -l -s x.git z
'
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
test_expect_success 'With -no-hardlinks, local will make a copy' '
git clone --bare --no-hardlinks x w &&
! repo_is_hardlinked w
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
'
test_expect_success 'Even without -l, local will make a hardlink' '
rm -fr w &&
git clone -l --bare x w &&
repo_is_hardlinked w
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
'
test_expect_success 'local clone of repo with nonexistent ref in HEAD' '
echo "ref: refs/heads/nonexistent" > a.git/HEAD &&
git clone a d &&
(cd d &&
git fetch &&
test ! -e .git/refs/remotes/origin/HEAD)
'
test_expect_success 'bundle clone without .bundle suffix' '
git clone dir/b3 &&
(cd b3 && git fetch)
'
test_expect_success 'bundle clone with .bundle suffix' '
git clone b1.bundle &&
(cd b1 && git fetch)
'
test_expect_success 'bundle clone from b4' '
git clone b4 bdl &&
(cd bdl && git fetch)
'
test_expect_success 'bundle clone from b4.bundle that does not exist' '
test_must_fail git clone b4.bundle bb
'
test_expect_success 'bundle clone with nonexistent HEAD' '
git clone b2.bundle b2 &&
(cd b2 &&
git fetch &&
test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify refs/heads/main)
'
test_expect_success 'clone empty repository' '
mkdir empty &&
(cd empty &&
git init &&
git config receive.denyCurrentBranch warn) &&
git clone empty empty-clone &&
test_tick &&
(cd empty-clone &&
echo "content" >> foo &&
git add foo &&
git commit -m "Initial commit" &&
git push origin main &&
expected=$(git rev-parse main) &&
actual=$(git --git-dir=../empty/.git rev-parse main) &&
test $actual = $expected)
'
test_expect_success 'clone empty repository, and then push should not segfault.' '
rm -fr empty/ empty-clone/ &&
mkdir empty &&
(cd empty && git init) &&
git clone empty empty-clone &&
(cd empty-clone &&
test_must_fail git push)
'
test_expect_success 'cloning non-existent directory fails' '
rm -rf does-not-exist &&
test_must_fail git clone does-not-exist
'
test_expect_success 'cloning non-git directory fails' '
rm -rf not-a-git-repo not-a-git-repo-clone &&
mkdir not-a-git-repo &&
test_must_fail git clone not-a-git-repo not-a-git-repo-clone
'
test_expect_success 'cloning file:// does not hardlink' '
git clone --bare file://"$(pwd)"/a non-local &&
! repo_is_hardlinked non-local
'
test_expect_success 'cloning a local path with --no-local does not hardlink' '
git clone --bare --no-local a force-nonlocal &&
! repo_is_hardlinked force-nonlocal
'
test_expect_success 'cloning locally respects "-u" for fetching refs' '
test_must_fail git clone --bare -u false a should_not_work.git
'
test_done