| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Amend a test added in 788a776069b (bugreport: collect list of
populated hooks, 2020-05-07) to "test_cmp" for the expected output,
instead of selectively using "grep" to check for specific things we
either expect or don't expect in the output.
As noted in a preceding commit our .git/hooks directory already
contains *.sample hooks, so we have no need to clobber the
prepare-commit-msg.sample hook in particular.
Instead we should assert that those *.sample hooks are not included in
the output, and for good measure let's add a new "unknown-hook", to
check that we only look through our own known hooks. See
cfe853e66be (hook-list.h: add a generated list of hooks, like
config-list.h, 2021-09-26) for how we generate that data.
We're intentionally not piping the "actual" output through "sort" or
similar, we'd also like to check that our reported hooks are sorted.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
While git can be compiled with SANITIZE=leak, we have not run
regression tests under that mode. Memory leaks have only been fixed as
one-offs without structured regression testing.
This change adds CI testing for it. We'll now build and small set of
whitelisted t00*.sh tests under Linux with a new job called
"linux-leaks".
The CI target uses a new GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true test
mode. When running in that mode, we'll assert that we were compiled
with SANITIZE=leak. We'll then skip all tests, except those that we've
opted-in by setting "TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true".
A test setting "TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true" setting can in turn
make use of the "SANITIZE_LEAK" prerequisite, should they wish to
selectively skip tests even under
"GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true". In the preceding commit we
started doing this in "t0004-unwritable.sh" under SANITIZE=leak, now
it'll combine nicely with "GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true".
This is how tests that don't set "TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true" will
be skipped under GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true:
$ GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true ./t0001-init.sh
1..0 # SKIP skip all tests in t0001 under SANITIZE=leak, TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK not set
The intent is to add more TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true annotations
as follow-up change, but let's start small to begin with.
In ci/run-build-and-tests.sh we make use of the default "*" case to
run "make test" without any GIT_TEST_* modes. SANITIZE=leak is known
to fail in combination with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=true in
t0016-oidmap.sh, and we're likely to have other such failures in
various GIT_TEST_* modes. Let's focus on getting the base tests
passing, we can expand coverage to GIT_TEST_* modes later.
It would also be possible to implement a more lightweight version of
this by only relying on setting "LSAN_OPTIONS". See
<YS9OT/pn5rRK9cGB@coredump.intra.peff.net>[1] and
<YS9ZIDpANfsh7N+S@coredump.intra.peff.net>[2] for a discussion of
that. I've opted for this approach of adding a GIT_TEST_* mode instead
because it's consistent with how we handle other special test modes.
Being able to add a "!SANITIZE_LEAK" prerequisite and calling
"test_done" early if it isn't satisfied also means that we can more
incrementally add regression tests without being forced to fix
widespread and hard-to-fix leaks at the same time.
We have tests that do simple checking of some tool we're interested
in, but later on in the script might be stressing trace2, or common
sources of leaks like "git log" in combination with the tool (e.g. the
commit-graph tests). To be clear having a prerequisite could also be
accomplished by using "LSAN_OPTIONS" directly.
On the topic of "LSAN_OPTIONS": It would be nice to have a mode to
aggregate all failures in our various scripts, see [2] for a start at
doing that which sets "log_path" in "LSAN_OPTIONS". I've punted on
that for now, it can be added later.
As of writing this we've got major regressions between master..seen,
i.e. the t000*.sh tests and more fixed since 31f9acf9ce2 (Merge branch
'ah/plugleaks', 2021-08-04) have regressed recently.
See the discussion at <87czsv2idy.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>[3] about
the lack of this sort of test mode, and 0e5bba53af (add UNLEAK
annotation for reducing leak false positives, 2017-09-08) for the
initial addition of SANITIZE=leak.
See also 09595ab381 (Merge branch 'jk/leak-checkers', 2017-09-19),
7782066f67 (Merge branch 'jk/apache-lsan', 2019-05-19) and the recent
936e58851a (Merge branch 'ah/plugleaks', 2021-05-07) for some of the
past history of "one-off" SANITIZE=leak (and more) fixes.
As noted in [5] we can't support this on OSX yet until Clang 14 is
released, at that point we'll probably want to resurrect that
"osx-leaks" job.
1. https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerLeakSanitizer
2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/YS9OT%2Fpn5rRK9cGB@coredump.intra.peff.net/
3. https://lore.kernel.org/git/87czsv2idy.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/
4. https://lore.kernel.org/git/YS9ZIDpANfsh7N+S@coredump.intra.peff.net/
5. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210916035603.76369-1-carenas@gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Occasionally a failure a user is seeing may be related to a specific
hook which is being run, perhaps without the user realizing. While the
contents of hooks can be sensitive - containing user data or process
information specific to the user's organization - simply knowing that a
hook is being run at a certain stage can help us to understand whether
something is going wrong.
Without a definitive list of hook names within the code, we compile our
own list from the documentation. This is likely prone to bitrot, but
designing a single source of truth for acceptable hooks is too much
overhead for this small change to the bugreport tool.
Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Teach Git how to prompt the user for a good bug report: reproduction
steps, expected behavior, and actual behavior. Later, Git can learn how
to collect some diagnostic information from the repository.
If users can send us a well-written bug report which contains diagnostic
information we would otherwise need to ask the user for, we can reduce
the number of question-and-answer round trips between the reporter and
the Git contributor.
Users may also wish to send a report like this to their local "Git
expert" if they have put their repository into a state they are confused
by.
Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Emily Shaffer