kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason	41be8ea223	tests: implicitly skip SYMLINKS tests using <prereq> Change the tests that skipped due to unavailable SYMLINKS support to use the three-arg prereq form of test_expect_success. Now we get an indication of how many tests that need symlinks are being skipped on platforms that don't support them. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	15 years ago
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason	fadb5156e4	tests: Skip tests in a way that makes sense under TAP SKIP messages are now part of the TAP plan. A TAP harness now knows why a particular test was skipped and can report that information. The non-TAP harness built into Git's test-lib did nothing special with these messages, and is unaffected by these changes. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	15 years ago
Jeff King	5dba359124	tests: remove exit after test_done call test_done always exits, so this line is never executed. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	16 years ago
Johannes Sixt	704a3143d5	Use prerequisite tags to skip tests that depend on symbolic links Many tests depend on that symbolic links work. This introduces a check that sets the prerequisite tag SYMLINKS if the file system supports symbolic links. Since so many tests have to check for this prerequisite, we do the check in test-lib.sh, so that we don't need to repeat the test in many scripts. To check for 'ln -s' failures, you can use a FAT partition on Linux: $ mkdosfs -C git-on-fat 1000000 $ sudo mount -o loop,uid=j6t,gid=users,shortname=winnt git-on-fat /mnt Clone git to /mnt and $ GIT_SKIP_TESTS='t0001.1[34] t0010 t1301 t403[34] t4129.[47] t5701.7 t7701.3 t9100 t9101.26 t9119 t9124.[67] t9200.10 t9600.6' \ make test (These additionally skipped tests depend on POSIX permissions that FAT on Linux does not provide.) Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>	16 years ago
Junio C Hamano	a6080a0a44	War on whitespace This uses "git-apply --whitespace=strip" to fix whitespace errors that have crept in to our source files over time. There are a few files that need to have trailing whitespaces (most notably, test vectors). The results still passes the test, and build result in Documentation/ area is unchanged. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	16a4c6176a	read-tree -m -u: avoid getting confused by intermediate symlinks. When switching from a branch with both x86_64/boot/Makefile and i386/boot/Makefile to another branch that has x86_64/boot as a symlink pointing at ../i386/boot, the code incorrectly removed i386/boot/Makefile. This was because we first removed everything under x86_64/boot to make room to create a symbolic link x86_64/boot, then removed x86_64/boot/Makefile which no longer exists but now is pointing at i386/boot/Makefile, thanks to the symlink we just created. This fixes it by using the has_symlink_leading_path() function introduced previously for git-apply in the checkout codepath. Earlier, "git checkout" was broken in t4122 test due to this bug, and the test had an extra "git reset --hard" as a workaround, which is removed because it is not needed anymore. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	64cab59159	apply: do not get confused by symlinks in the middle HPA noticed that git-rebase fails when changes involve symlinks in the middle of the hierarchy. Consider: * The tree state before the patch is applied has arch/x86_64/boot as a symlink pointing at ../i386/boot/ * The patch tries to remove arch/x86_64/boot symlink, and create bunch of files there: .gitignore, Makefile, etc. git-apply tries to be careful while applying patches; it never touches the working tree until it is convinced that the patch would apply cleanly. One of the check it does is that when it knows a path is going to be created by the patch, it runs lstat() on the path to make sure it does not exist. This leads to a false alarm. Because we do not touch the working tree before all the check passes, when we try to make sure that arch/x86_64/boot/.gitignore does not exist yet, we haven't removed the arch/x86_64/boot symlink. The lstat() check ends up seeing arch/i386/boot/.gitignore through the yet-to-be-removed symlink, and says "Hey, you already have a file there, but what you fed me is a patch to create a new file. I am not going to clobber what you have in the working tree." We have similar checks to see a file we are going to modify does exist and match the preimage of the diff, which is done by directly opening and reading the file. For a file we are going to delete, we make sure that it does exist and matches what is going to be removed (a removal patch records the full preimage, so we check what you have in your working tree matches it in full -- otherwise we would risk losing your local changes), which again is done by directly opening and reading the file. These checks need to be adjusted so that they are not fooled by symlinks in the middle. - To make sure something does not exist, first lstat(). If it does not exist, it does not, so be happy. If it _does_, we might be getting fooled by a symlink in the middle, so break leading paths and see if there are symlinks involved. When we are checking for a path a/b/c/d, if any of a, a/b, a/b/c is a symlink, then a/b/c/d does _NOT_ exist, for the purpose of our test. This would fix this particular case you saw, and would not add extra overhead in the usual case. - To make sure something already exists, first lstat(). If it does not exist, barf (up to this, we already do). Even if it does seem to exist, we might be getting fooled by a symlink in the middle, so make sure leading paths are not symlinks. This would make the normal codepath much more expensive for deep trees, which is a bit worrisome. This patch implements the first side of the check "making sure it does not exist". The latter "making sure it exists" check is not done yet, so applying the patch in reverse would still fail, but we have to start from somewhere. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago