summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t4127-apply-same-fn.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2022-01-03Merge branch 'es/test-chain-lint'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-4/+1
Broken &&-chains in the test scripts have been corrected. * es/test-chain-lint: t6000-t9999: detect and signal failure within loop t5000-t5999: detect and signal failure within loop t4000-t4999: detect and signal failure within loop t0000-t3999: detect and signal failure within loop tests: simplify by dropping unnecessary `for` loops tests: apply modern idiom for exiting loop upon failure tests: apply modern idiom for signaling test failure tests: fix broken &&-chains in `{...}` groups tests: fix broken &&-chains in `$(...)` command substitutions tests: fix broken &&-chains in compound statements tests: use test_write_lines() to generate line-oriented output tests: simplify construction of large blocks of text t9107: use shell parameter expansion to avoid breaking &&-chain t6300: make `%(raw:size) --shell` test more robust t5516: drop unnecessary subshell and command invocation t4202: clarify intent by creating expected content less cleverly t1020: avoid aborting entire test script when one test fails t1010: fix unnoticed failure on Windows t/lib-pager: use sane_unset() to avoid breaking &&-chain
2021-12-13tests: use test_write_lines() to generate line-oriented outputLibravatar Eric Sunshine1-4/+1
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>
2021-11-01leak tests: mark some apply tests as passing with SANITIZE=leakLibravatar Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason1-0/+2
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>
2020-10-20apply: when -R, also reverse list of sectionsLibravatar Jonathan Tan1-0/+9
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>
2010-11-09tests: add missing &&Libravatar Jonathan Nieder1-9/+9
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>
2010-05-31tests: use "test_cmp", not "diff", when verifying the resultLibravatar Gary V. Vaughan1-3/+3
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>
2008-09-03tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999)Libravatar Nanako Shiraishi1-2/+2
Converts tests between t3600-t6300. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-07-04t4127-apply-same-fn: Avoid sed -iLibravatar Johannes Sixt1-11/+16
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@telecom.at> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-06-27git-apply: handle a patch that touches the same path more than once betterLibravatar Don Zickus1-0/+85
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>