git-commit-vandalism/t/t5402-post-merge-hook.sh

63 lines
1.6 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2006 Josh England
#
test_description='Test the post-merge hook.'
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$/i\ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\ ' t/t980[0167]*.sh t/t9811*.sh Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-19 00:44:19 +01:00
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME
leak tests: mark passing SANITIZE=leak tests as leak-free Mark those remaining tests that pass when run under SANITIZE=leak with TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true, these were either omitted in f346fcb62a0 (Merge branch 'ab/mark-leak-free-tests-even-more', 2021-12-15) and 5a4f8381b68 (Merge branch 'ab/mark-leak-free-tests', 2021-10-25), or have had their memory leaks fixed since then. With this change there's now a a one-to-one mapping between those tests that we have opted-in via "TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true", and those that pass with the new "check" mode: GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check \ GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true \ make test SANITIZE=leak Note that the "GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true" is needed due to the edge cases noted in a preceding commit, i.e. in some cases we'd pass the test itself, but still have outstanding leaks due to ignored exit codes. The "GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true" corrects for that, we're only marking those tests as passing that really don't have any leaks, whether that was reflected in their exit code or not. Note that the change here to "t9100-git-svn-basic.sh" is marking that test as passing under SANITIZE=leak, we're removing a "TEST_FAILS_SANITIZE_LEAK=true" line, not "TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true". See 7a98d9ab00d (revisions API: have release_revisions() release "cmdline", 2022-04-13) for the introduction of that t/lib-git-svn.sh-specific variable. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-07-28 01:13:41 +02:00
TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
. ./test-lib.sh
test_expect_success setup '
echo Data for commit0. >a &&
git update-index --add a &&
tree0=$(git write-tree) &&
commit0=$(echo setup | git commit-tree $tree0) &&
echo Changed data for commit1. >a &&
git update-index a &&
tree1=$(git write-tree) &&
commit1=$(echo modify | git commit-tree $tree1 -p $commit0) &&
git update-ref refs/heads/main $commit0 &&
git clone ./. clone1 &&
GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git update-index --add a &&
git clone ./. clone2 &&
GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git update-index --add a
'
test_expect_success 'setup clone hooks' '
test_when_finished "rm -f hook" &&
cat >hook <<-\EOF &&
echo $@ >>$GIT_DIR/post-merge.args
EOF
test_hook --setup -C clone1 post-merge <hook &&
test_hook --setup -C clone2 post-merge <hook
'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success 'post-merge does not run for up-to-date ' '
GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git merge $commit0 &&
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
! test -f clone1/.git/post-merge.args
'
test_expect_success 'post-merge runs as expected ' '
GIT_DIR=clone1/.git git merge $commit1 &&
test -e clone1/.git/post-merge.args
'
test_expect_success 'post-merge from normal merge receives the right argument ' '
grep 0 clone1/.git/post-merge.args
'
test_expect_success 'post-merge from squash merge runs as expected ' '
GIT_DIR=clone2/.git git merge --squash $commit1 &&
test -e clone2/.git/post-merge.args
'
test_expect_success 'post-merge from squash merge receives the right argument ' '
grep 1 clone2/.git/post-merge.args
'
test_done