The sparse-index/sparse-checkout feature had a bug in its use of
the matching code to determine which path is in or outside the
sparse checkout patterns.
* ds/sparse-deep-pattern-checkout-fix:
unpack-trees: use traverse_path instead of name
t1092: add deeper changes during a checkout
Coding guideline document has been updated to clarify what goes to
standard error in our system.
* es/doc-stdout-vs-stderr:
CodingGuidelines: document which output goes to stdout vs. stderr
Many tests that used to need GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME
mechanism to force "git" to use 'master' as the default name for
the initial branch no longer need it; the use of the mechanism from
them have been removed.
* js/test-initial-branch-override-cleanup:
tests: set GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME only when needed
"git worktree add" showed "Preparing worktree" message to the
standard output stream, but when it failed, the message from die()
went to the standard error stream. Depending on the order the
stdio streams are flushed at the program end, this resulted in
confusing output. It has been corrected by sending all the chatty
messages to the standard error stream.
* es/worktree-chatty-to-stderr:
git-worktree.txt: add missing `-v` to synopsis for `worktree list`
worktree: send "chatty" messages to stderr
Drop support for TravisCI and update test workflows at GitHub.
* ab/ci-updates:
CI: don't run "make test" twice in one job
CI: use "$runs_on_pool", not "$jobname" to select packages & config
CI: rename the "Linux32" job to lower-case "linux32"
CI: use shorter names that fit in UX tooltips
CI: remove Travis CI support
Prepare tests on ref API to help testing reftable backends.
* hn/reflog-tests:
refs/debug: trim trailing LF from reflog message
test-ref-store: tweaks to for-each-reflog-ent format
t1405: check for_each_reflog_ent_reverse() more thoroughly
test-ref-store: don't add newline to reflog message
show-branch: show reflog message
When the "git push" command is killed while the receiving end is
trying to report what happened to the ref update proposals, the
latter used to die, due to SIGPIPE. The code now ignores SIGPIPE
to increase our chances to run the post-receive hook after it
happens.
* rj/receive-pack-avoid-sigpipe-during-status-reporting:
receive-pack: ignore SIGPIPE while reporting status to client
API clean-up.
* ab/run-command:
run-command API: remove "env" member, always use "env_array"
difftool: use "env_array" to simplify memory management
run-command API: remove "argv" member, always use "args"
run-command API users: use strvec_push(), not argv construction
run-command API users: use strvec_pushl(), not argv construction
run-command tests: use strvec_pushv(), not argv assignment
run-command API users: use strvec_pushv(), not argv assignment
upload-archive: use regular "struct child_process" pattern
worktree: stop being overly intimate with run_command() internals
"Zealous diff3" style of merge conflict presentation has been added.
* en/zdiff3:
update documentation for new zdiff3 conflictStyle
xdiff: implement a zealous diff3, or "zdiff3"
The default setting for trace2 event nesting was too low to cause
test failures, which is worked around by bumping it up in the test
framework.
* ds/trace2-regions-in-tests:
t/t*: remove custom GIT_TRACE2_EVENT_NESTING
test-lib.sh: set GIT_TRACE2_EVENT_NESTING
The test framework learns to list unsatisfied test prerequisites,
and optionally error out when prerequisites that are expected to be
satisfied are not.
* fs/test-prereq:
test-lib: make BAIL_OUT() work in tests and prereq
test-lib: introduce required prereq for test runs
test-lib: show missing prereq summary
More tests are marked as leak-free.
* ab/mark-leak-free-tests-even-more:
leak tests: mark some fast-import tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some config tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some status tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some clone tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some add tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some diff tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some apply tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some notes tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some update-index tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some rev-parse tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some rev-list tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark some misc tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark most gettext tests as passing with SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark "sort" test as passing SANITIZE=leak
leak tests: mark a read-tree test as passing SANITIZE=leak
The "reftable" backend for the refs API, without integrating into
the refs subsystem, has been added.
* hn/reftable:
Add "test-tool dump-reftable" command.
reftable: add dump utility
reftable: implement stack, a mutable database of reftable files.
reftable: implement refname validation
reftable: add merged table view
reftable: add a heap-based priority queue for reftable records
reftable: reftable file level tests
reftable: read reftable files
reftable: generic interface to tables
reftable: write reftable files
reftable: a generic binary tree implementation
reftable: reading/writing blocks
Provide zlib's uncompress2 from compat/zlib-compat.c
reftable: (de)serialization for the polymorphic record type.
reftable: add blocksource, an abstraction for random access reads
reftable: utility functions
reftable: add error related functionality
reftable: add LICENSE
hash.h: provide constants for the hash IDs
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
Junio C Hamano