|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
Jeff King
Johannes Sixt
Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano