summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t5004-archive-corner-cases.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2015-08-28archive-zip: support more than 65535 entriesLibravatar René Scharfe1-1/+1
Support more than 65535 entries cleanly by writing a "zip64 end of central directory record" (with a 64-bit field for the number of entries) before the usual "end of central directory record" (which contains only a 16-bit field). InfoZIP's zip does the same. Archives with 65535 or less entries are not affected. Programs that extract all files like InfoZIP's zip and 7-Zip ignored the field and could extract all files already. Software that relies on the ZIP file directory to show a list of contained files quickly to simulate to normal directory like Windows' built-in ZIP functionality only saw a subset of the included files. Windows supports ZIP64 since Vista according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_%28file_format%29#ZIP64. Suggested-by: Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-08-28t5004: test ZIP archives with many entriesLibravatar René Scharfe1-0/+40
A ZIP file directory has a 16-bit field for the number of entries it contains. There are 64-bit extensions to deal with that. Demonstrate that git archive --format=zip currently doesn't use them and instead overflows the field. InfoZIP's unzip doesn't care about this field and extracts all files anyway. Software that uses the directory for presenting a filesystem like view quickly -- notably Windows -- depends on it, but doesn't lend itself to an automatic test case easily. Use InfoZIP's zipinfo, which probably isn't available everywhere but at least can provides *some* way to check this field. To speed things up a bit create and commit only a subset of the files and build a fake tree out of duplicates and pass that to git archive. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: wrap complicated expect_code users in a blockLibravatar Jeff King1-2/+4
If we are expecting a command to produce a particular exit code, we can use test_expect_code. However, some cases are more complicated, and want to accept one of a range of exit codes. For these, we end up with something like: cmd; case "$?" in ... That unfortunately breaks the &&-chain and fools --chain-lint. Since these special cases are so few, we can wrap them in a block, like this: { cmd; ret=$?; } && case "$ret" in ... This accomplishes the same thing, and retains the &&-chain (the exit status fed to the && is that of the assignment, which should always be true). It's technically longer, but it is probably a good thing for unusual code like this to stand out. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-10-20Revert "archive: honor tar.umask even for pax headers"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-5/+0
This reverts commit 10f343ea814f5c18a0913997904ee11cd9b7da24, whose output is no longer bit-for-bit equivalent from the older versions of Git, which the infrastructure to (pretend to) upload tarballs kernel.org uses depends on.
2014-09-02Merge branch 'bc/archive-pax-header-mode'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+5
Implementations of "tar" that do not understand an extended pax header would extract the contents of it in a regular file; make sure the permission bits of this file follows the same tar.umask configuration setting. * bc/archive-pax-header-mode: archive: honor tar.umask even for pax headers
2014-08-04archive: honor tar.umask even for pax headersLibravatar brian m. carlson1-0/+5
git archive's tar format uses extended pax headers to encode metadata into the archive. Most tar implementations correctly treat these as metadata, but some that do not understand the pax format extract these as files instead. Apply the tar.umask setting to these entries to prevent tampering by other users. Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-06-04t5000, t5003: do not use test_cmp to compare binary filesLibravatar Stepan Kasal1-1/+1
test_cmp() is primarily meant to compare text files (and display the difference for debug purposes). Raw "cmp" is better suited to compare binary files (tar, zip, etc.). On MinGW, test_cmp is a shell function mingw_test_cmp that tries to read both files into environment, stripping CR characters (introduced in commit 4d715ac0). This function usually speeds things up, as fork is extremly slow on Windows. But no wonder that this function is extremely slow and sometimes even crashes when comparing large tar or zip files. Signed-off-by: Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-02Merge branch 'rs/empty-archive'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+15
Fixes tests added in 1.8.2 era that are broken on BSDs. * rs/empty-archive: t5004: resurrect original empty tar archive test t5004: avoid using tar for checking emptiness of archive
2013-05-09t5004: avoid using tar for checking emptiness of archiveLibravatar René Scharfe1-3/+2
Test 2 of t5004 checks if a supposedly empty tar archive really contains no files. 24676f02 (t5004: fix issue with empty archive test and bsdtar) removed our commit hash to make it work with bsdtar, but the test still fails on NetBSD and OpenBSD, which use their own tar that considers a tar file containing only NULs as broken. Here's what the different archivers do when asked to create a tar file without entries: $ uname -v NetBSD 6.0.1 (GENERIC) $ gtar --version | head -1 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 $ bsdtar --version bsdtar 2.8.4 - libarchive 2.8.4 $ : >zero.tar $ perl -e 'print "\0" x 10240' >tenk.tar $ sha1 zero.tar tenk.tar SHA1 (zero.tar) = da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 SHA1 (tenk.tar) = 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c $ : | tar cf - -T - | sha1 da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 $ : | gtar cf - -T - | sha1 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c $ : | bsdtar cf - -T - | sha1 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c So NetBSD's native tar creates an empty file, while GNU tar and bsdtar both give us 10KB of NULs -- just like git archive with an empty tree. Now let's see how the archivers handle these two kinds of empty tar files: $ tar tf zero.tar; echo $? tar: Unexpected EOF on archive file 1 $ gtar tf zero.tar; echo $? gtar: This does not look like a tar archive gtar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors 2 $ bsdtar tf zero.tar; echo $? 0 $ tar tf tenk.tar; echo $? tar: Cannot identify format. Searching... tar: End of archive volume 1 reached tar: Sorry, unable to determine archive format. 1 $ gtar tf tenk.tar; echo $? 0 $ bsdtar tf tenk.tar; echo $? 0 NetBSD's tar complains about both, bsdtar happily accepts any of them and GNU tar doesn't like zero-length archive files. So the safest course of action is to stay with our block-of-NULs format which is compatible with GNU tar and bsdtar, as we can't make NetBSD's native tar happy anyway. We can simplify our test, however, by taking tar out of the picture. Instead of extracting the archive and checking for the non-presence of files, check if the file has a size of 10KB and contains only NULs. This makes t5004 pass on NetBSD and OpenBSD. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-05-09t5004: resurrect original empty tar archive testLibravatar René Scharfe1-0/+14
Add a test to verify the emptiness of an archive by extracting its contents. Don't run this test if the version of tar doesn't support archives containing only a comment header, though. The existing check 'tar archive of empty tree is empty' used to work like that (minus the tar capability check) but was changed to depend on the exact representation of empty tar files created by git archive instead of on the behaviour of tar in order to avoid issues with different tar versions. The different approaches test different things: The existing one is for empty trees, for which we know the exact expected output and thus we can simply check it without extracting; the new one is for commits with empty trees, whose archives include stamps and so the more "natural" check by extraction is a better fit because it focuses on the interesting aspect, namely the absence of any archive entries. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-05-09t5004: avoid using tar for checking emptiness of archiveLibravatar René Scharfe1-3/+2
Test 2 of t5004 checks if a supposedly empty tar archive really contains no files. 24676f02 (t5004: fix issue with empty archive test and bsdtar) removed our commit hash to make it work with bsdtar, but the test still fails on NetBSD and OpenBSD, which use their own tar that considers a tar file containing only NULs as broken. Here's what the different archivers do when asked to create a tar file without entries: $ uname -v NetBSD 6.0.1 (GENERIC) $ gtar --version | head -1 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 $ bsdtar --version bsdtar 2.8.4 - libarchive 2.8.4 $ : >zero.tar $ perl -e 'print "\0" x 10240' >tenk.tar $ sha1 zero.tar tenk.tar SHA1 (zero.tar) = da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 SHA1 (tenk.tar) = 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c $ : | tar cf - -T - | sha1 da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 $ : | gtar cf - -T - | sha1 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c $ : | bsdtar cf - -T - | sha1 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c So NetBSD's native tar creates an empty file, while GNU tar and bsdtar both give us 10KB of NULs -- just like git archive with an empty tree. Now let's see how the archivers handle these two kinds of empty tar files: $ tar tf zero.tar; echo $? tar: Unexpected EOF on archive file 1 $ gtar tf zero.tar; echo $? gtar: This does not look like a tar archive gtar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors 2 $ bsdtar tf zero.tar; echo $? 0 $ tar tf tenk.tar; echo $? tar: Cannot identify format. Searching... tar: End of archive volume 1 reached tar: Sorry, unable to determine archive format. $ gtar tf tenk.tar; echo $? 0 $ bsdtar tf tenk.tar; echo $? 0 NetBSD's tar complains about both, bsdtar happily accepts any of them and GNU tar doesn't like zero-length archive files. So the safest course of action is to stay with our block-of-NULs format which is compatible with GNU tar and bsdtar, as we can't make NetBSD's native tar happy anyway. We can simplify our test, however, by taking tar out of the picture. Instead of extracting the archive and checking for the non-presence of files, check if the file has a size of 10KB and contains only NULs. This makes t5004 pass on NetBSD and OpenBSD. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-05-09t5004: ignore pax global header fileLibravatar René Scharfe1-1/+1
Versions of tar that don't know pax headers -- like the ones in NetBSD 6 and OpenBSD 5.2 -- extract them as regular files. Explicitly ignore the file created for our global header when checking the list of extracted files, as this is normal and harmless fall-back behaviour. This fixes test 3 of t5004 on these platforms. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-04-10t5004: fix issue with empty archive test and bsdtarLibravatar René Scharfe1-1/+1
bsdtar, which is the default tar on Mac OS X, handles empty archives just fine but reports archives containing only a pax extended header comment as damaged. Work around the issue by explicitly generating the archive for the tree and not the commit, which causes git archive to omit the commit hash comment record from the tar file. Reported-by: BJ Hargrave <bj@bjhargrave.com> Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-03-10archive: handle commits with an empty treeLibravatar Jeff King1-0/+102
git-archive relies on get_pathspec to convert its argv into a list of pathspecs. When get_pathspec is given an empty argv list, it returns a single pathspec, the empty string, to indicate that everything matches. When we feed this to our path_exists function, we typically see that the pathspec turns up at least one item in the tree, and we are happy. But when our tree is empty, we erroneously think it is because the pathspec is too limited, when in fact it is simply that there is nothing to be found in the tree. This is a weird corner case, but the correct behavior is almost certainly to produce an empty archive, not to exit with an error. This patch teaches git-archive to create empty archives when there is no pathspec given (we continue to complain if a pathspec is given, since it obviously is not matched). It also confirms that the tar and zip writers produce sane output in this instance. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>