| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Mark some tests that match "*apply*" as passing when git is compiled
with SANITIZE=leak. They'll now be listed as running under the
"GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true" test mode (the "linux-leaks" CI
target).
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
A patch changing a symlink into a file is written with 2 sections (in
the code, represented as "struct patch"): firstly, the deletion of the
symlink, and secondly, the creation of the file. When applying that
patch with -R, the sections are reversed, so we get:
(1) creation of a symlink, then
(2) deletion of a file.
This causes an issue when the "deletion of a file" section is checked,
because Git observes that the so-called file is not a file but a
symlink, resulting in a "wrong type" error message.
What we want is:
(1) deletion of a file, then
(2) creation of a symlink.
In the code, this is reflected in the behavior of previous_patch() when
invoked from check_preimage() when the deletion is checked. Creation
then deletion means that when the deletion is checked, previous_patch()
returns the creation section, triggering a mode conflict resulting in
the "wrong type" error message. But deletion then creation means that
when the deletion is checked, previous_patch() returns NULL, so the
deletion mode is checked against lstat, which is what we want.
There are also other ways a patch can contain 2 sections referencing the
same file, for example, in 7a07841c0b ("git-apply: handle a patch that
touches the same path more than once better", 2008-06-27). "git apply
-R" fails in the same way, and this commit makes this case succeed.
Therefore, when building the list of sections, build them in reverse
order (by adding to the front of the list instead of the back) when -R
is passed.
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Breaks in a test assertion's && chain can potentially hide
failures from earlier commands in the chain.
Commands intended to fail should be marked with !, test_must_fail, or
test_might_fail. The examples in this patch do not require that.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
In tests, call test_cmp rather than raw diff where possible (i.e. if
the output does not go to a pipe), to allow the use of, say, 'cmp'
when the default 'diff -u' is not compatible with a vendor diff.
When that is not possible, use $DIFF, as set in GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS.
Signed-off-by: Gary V. Vaughan <gary@thewrittenword.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Converts tests between t3600-t6300.
Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@telecom.at>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When working with a lot of people who backport patches all day long, every
once in a while I get a patch that modifies the same file more than once
inside the same patch. git-apply either fails if the second change relies
on the first change or silently drops the first change if the second change
is independent.
The silent part is the scary scenario for us. Also this behaviour is
different from the patch-utils.
I have modified git-apply to create a table of the filenames of files it
modifies such that if a later patch chunk modifies a file in the table it
will buffer the previously changed file instead of reading the original file
from disk.
Logic has been put in to handle creations/deletions/renames/copies. All the
relevant tests of git-apply succeed.
A new test has been added to cover the cases I addressed.
The fix is relatively straight-forward.
Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Jonathan Tan
Jonathan Nieder
Gary V. Vaughan
Nanako Shiraishi
Johannes Sixt
Don Zickus