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>
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>
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>
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>
>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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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, `$(...)` substitutions, or within bodies of compound
statements, such as `if`, `for`, `while`, `case`, etc. `chainlint.sed`
partly fills in the gap by catching broken &&-chains in `(...)`
subshells, but bugs can still lurk behind broken &&-chains in the other
cases.
Fix broken &&-chains in compound statements in order to reduce the
number of possible lurking bugs.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Take advantage of test_write_lines() to generate line-oriented output
rather than using for-loops or a series of `echo` commands. Not only is
test_write_lines() a natural fit for such a task, but there is less
opportunity for a broken &&-chain.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Take advantage of here-docs to create large blocks of text rather than
using a series of `echo` statements. Not only are here-docs a natural
fit for such a task, but there is less opportunity for a broken
&&-chain.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This test intentionally breaks the &&-chain when using `expr` to parse
"[<path>]:<ref>" since the pattern matching operation will return 1
(failure) when <path> is empty even though an empty <path> is legitimate
in this test and should not cause the test to fail. However, it is
possible to parse the input without breaking the &&-chain by using shell
parameter expansion (i.e. `${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 $ref with "refs/remotes/" removed, hence
`continue` will not be taken.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This test populates its `expect` file solely by appending content but
fails to ensure that the file starts out empty. The test succeeds only
because no earlier test populated a file of the exact same name, however
this is an accident waiting to happen. Make the test more robust by
ensuring that it contains exactly the intended content.
While at it, simplify the implementation via a straightforward `sed`
application and by avoiding dropping out of the single-quote context
within the test body (thus eliminating a hard-to-digest combination of
apostrophes and backslashes).
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To create its "expect" file, this test pipes into `sort` the output of
`git for-each-ref` and a copy of that same output but with a minor
textual transformation applied. To do so, it employs a subshell and
commands `cat` and `sed` even though the same result can be accomplished
by `sed` alone (without a subshell).
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Several tests assign the output of `$(...)` 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" = "$y"`.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Although `exit 1` is the proper way to signal a test failure from within
a subshell, its use outside any subshell should be avoided since it
aborts the entire script rather than aborting only the failed test.
Instead, a simple `return 1` is the proper idiom for signaling failure
outside a subshell since it aborts only the test in question, not the
entire script.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
On Microsoft Windows, a directory name should never end with a period.
Quoting from Microsoft documentation[1]:
Do not end a file or directory name with a space or a period.
Although the underlying file system may support such names, the
Windows shell and user interface does not.
Naming a directory with a trailing period is indeed perilous:
% git init foo
% cd foo
% mkdir a.
% git status
warning: could not open directory 'a./': No such file or directory
The t1010 "setup" test:
for d in a a. a0
do
mkdir "$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>
"git rebase -x" added an unnecessary 'exec' instructions before
'noop', which has been corrected.
* en/rebase-x-fix:
sequencer: avoid adding exec commands for non-commit creating commands
The single-key-input mode in "git add -p" had some code to handle
keys that generate a sequence of input via ReadKey(), which did not
handle end-of-file correctly, which has been fixed.
* cb/add-p-single-key-fix:
add -p: avoid use of undefined $key when ReadKey -> EOF
The completion script (in contrib/) learns that the "--date"
option of commands from the "git log" family takes "human" and
"auto" as valid values.
* yn/complete-date-format-options:
completion: add human and auto: date format
When a non-existent program is given as the pager, we tried to
reuse an uninitialized child_process structure and crashed, which
has been fixed.
* em/missing-pager:
pager: fix crash when pager program doesn't exist
"git submodule deinit" for a submodule whose .git metadata
directory is embedded in its working tree refused to work, until
the submodule gets converted to use the "absorbed" form where the
metadata directory is stored in superproject, and a gitfile at the
top-level of the working tree of the submodule points at it. The
command is taught to convert such submodules to the absorbed form
as needed.
* mp/absorb-submodule-git-dir-upon-deinit:
submodule: absorb git dir instead of dying on deinit
The function to cull a child process and determine the exit status
had two separate code paths for normal callers and callers in a
signal handler, and the latter did not yield correct value when the
child has caught a signal. The handling of the exit status has
been unified for these two code paths. An existing test with
flakiness has also been corrected.
* jk/t7006-sigpipe-tests-fix:
t7006: simplify exit-code checks for sigpipe tests
t7006: clean up SIGPIPE handling in trace2 tests
run-command: unify signal and regular logic for wait_or_whine()
"git fetch", when received a bad packfile, can fail with SIGPIPE.
This wasn't wrong per-se, but we now detect the situation and fail
in a more predictable way.
* jk/fetch-pack-avoid-sigpipe-to-index-pack:
fetch-pack: ignore SIGPIPE when writing to index-pack
Various operating modes of "git reset" have been made to work
better with the sparse index.
* vd/sparse-reset:
unpack-trees: improve performance of next_cache_entry
reset: make --mixed sparse-aware
reset: make sparse-aware (except --mixed)
reset: integrate with sparse index
reset: expand test coverage for sparse checkouts
sparse-index: update command for expand/collapse test
reset: preserve skip-worktree bit in mixed reset
reset: rename is_missing to !is_in_reset_tree
On platforms where ulong is shorter than size_t, code paths that
shifted 1 or 1U to the left lacked the necessary cast to size_t,
which have been corrected.
* po/size-t-for-vs:
object-file.c: LLP64 compatibility, upcast unity for left shift
diffcore-delta.c: LLP64 compatibility, upcast unity for left shift
repack.c: LLP64 compatibility, upcast unity for left shift
The advice message given by "git pull" when the user hasn't made a
choice between merge and rebase still said that the merge is the
default, which no longer is the case. This has been corrected.
* ah/advice-pull-has-no-preference-between-rebase-and-merge:
pull: don't say that merge is "the default strategy"
