| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
People often forget to chain the commands in their test together
with &&, leaving a failure from an earlier command in the test go
unnoticed. The new GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT mechanism allows you to
catch such a mistake more easily.
* jk/test-chain-lint: (36 commits)
t9001: drop save_confirm helper
t0020: use test_* helpers instead of hand-rolled messages
t: simplify loop exit-code status variables
t: fix some trivial cases of ignored exit codes in loops
t7701: fix ignored exit code inside loop
t3305: fix ignored exit code inside loop
t0020: fix ignored exit code inside loops
perf-lib: fix ignored exit code inside loop
t6039: fix broken && chain
t9158, t9161: fix broken &&-chain in git-svn tests
t9104: fix test for following larger parents
t4104: drop hand-rolled error reporting
t0005: fix broken &&-chains
t7004: fix embedded single-quotes
t0050: appease --chain-lint
t9001: use test_when_finished
t4117: use modern test_* helpers
t6034: use modern test_* helpers
t1301: use modern test_* helpers
t0020: use modern test_* helpers
...
|
|
"git rev-list --bisect --first-parent" does not work (yet) and can
even cause SEGV; forbid it. "git log --bisect --first-parent"
would not be useful until "git bisect --first-parent" materializes,
so it is also forbidden for now.
* kd/rev-list-bisect-first-parent:
rev-list: refuse --first-parent combined with --bisect
|
|
These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain,
but during a setup phase. We may fail to notice failure in
commands that build the test environment, but these are
typically not expected to fail at all (but it's still good
to double-check that our test environment is what we
expect).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
rev-list --bisect is used by git bisect, but never together with
--first-parent. Because rev-list --bisect together with --first-parent
is not handled currently, and even leads to segfaults, refuse to use
both options together.
Because this is not supported, it makes little sense to use git log
--bisect --first parent either, because refs/heads/bad is not limited to
the first parent chain.
Helped-by: Junio C. Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Daudt <me@ikke.info>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
There is currently no easy way to ask the revision traversal
machinery to include objects reachable from the index (e.g.,
blobs and trees that have not yet been committed). This
patch adds an option to do so.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
With the previous fix 895c5ba3 (revision: do not peel tags used in
range notation, 2013-09-19), handle_revision_arg() that processes
command line arguments for the "git log" family of commands no
longer directly places the object pointed by the tag in the pending
object array when it sees a tag object. We used to place pointee
there after copying the flag bits like UNINTERESTING and
SYMMETRIC_LEFT.
This change meant that any flag that is relevant to later history
traversal must now be propagated to the pointed objects (most often
these are commits) while starting the traversal, which is partly
done by handle_commit() that is called from prepare_revision_walk().
We did propagate UNINTERESTING, but did not do so for others, most
notably SYMMETRIC_LEFT. This caused "git log --left-right v1.0..."
(where "v1.0" is a tag) to start losing the "leftness" from the
commit the tag points at.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
"git rev-list --objects ^A^{tree} B^{tree}" ought to mean "I want a
list of objects inside B's tree, but please exclude the objects that
appear inside A's tree".
we see the top-level tree marked as uninteresting (i.e. ^A^{tree} in
the above example) and call mark_tree_uninteresting() on it; this
unfortunately prevents us from recursing into the tree and marking
the objects in the tree as uninteresting.
The reason why "git log ^A A" yields an empty set of commits,
i.e. we do not have a similar issue for commits, is because we call
mark_parents_uninteresting() after seeing an uninteresting commit.
The uninteresting-ness of the commit itself does not prevent its
parents from being marked as uninteresting.
Introduce mark_tree_contents_uninteresting() and structure the code
in handle_commit() in such a way that it makes it the responsibility
of the callchain leading to this function to mark commits, trees and
blobs as uninteresting, and also make it the responsibility of the
helpers called from this function to mark objects that are reachable
from them.
Note that this is a very old bug that probably dates back to the day
when "rev-list --objects" was introduced. The line to clear
tree->object.parsed at the end of mark_tree_contents_uninteresting()
can be removed when this fix is merged to the codebase after
6e454b9a (clear parsed flag when we free tree buffers, 2013-06-05).
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
A range notation "A..B" means exactly the same thing as what "^A B"
means, i.e. the set of commits that are reachable from B but not
from A. But the internal representation after the revision parser
parsed these two notations are subtly different.
- "rev-list ^A B" leaves A and B in the revs->pending.objects[]
array, with the former marked as UNINTERESTING and the revision
traversal machinery propagates the mark to underlying commit
objects A^0 and B^0.
- "rev-list A..B" peels tags and leaves A^0 (marked as
UNINTERESTING) and B^0 in revs->pending.objects[] array before
the traversal machinery kicks in.
This difference usually does not matter, but starts to matter when
the --objects option is used. For example, we see this:
$ git rev-list --objects v1.8.4^1..v1.8.4 | grep $(git rev-parse v1.8.4)
$ git rev-list --objects v1.8.4 ^v1.8.4^1 | grep $(git rev-parse v1.8.4)
04f013dc38d7512eadb915eba22efc414f18b869 v1.8.4
With the former invocation, the revision traversal machinery never
hears about the tag v1.8.4 (it only sees the result of peeling it,
i.e. the commit v1.8.4^0), and the tag itself does not appear in the
output. The latter does send the tag object itself to the output.
Make the range notation keep the unpeeled objects and feed them to
the traversal machinery to fix this inconsistency.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
Junio C Hamano
Jeff King
Kevin Daudt
Elijah Newren