mirrors/git
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-01 06:47:52 +01:00
Code Activity
git/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh

139 lines
3.7 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2006 Shawn O. Pearce
#
test_description='Test the update hook infrastructure.'
. ./test-lib.sh
test_expect_success setup '
echo This is a test. >a &&
Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-03 07:52:14 +02:00
git update-index --add a &&
tree0=$(git write-tree) &&
commit0=$(echo setup | git commit-tree $tree0) &&
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
echo We hope it works. >a &&
Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-03 07:52:14 +02:00
git update-index a &&
tree1=$(git write-tree) &&
commit1=$(echo modify | git commit-tree $tree1 -p $commit0) &&
git update-ref refs/heads/master $commit0 &&
git update-ref refs/heads/tofail $commit1 &&
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
git clone --bare ./. victim.git &&
GIT_DIR=victim.git git update-ref refs/heads/tofail $commit1 &&
Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-03 07:52:14 +02:00
git update-ref refs/heads/master $commit1 &&
git update-ref refs/heads/tofail $commit0
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
'
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
cat >victim.git/hooks/pre-receive <<'EOF'
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
#!/bin/sh
Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401 We only care about getting what should be an empty string and sending it to a file, without a trailing LF, so the empty string translates into a 0 byte file. Earlier when I originally wrote these lines Mac OS X allowed the format string of printf to be the empty string, but more recent versions appear to have been 'improved' with error messages if the format is not given. This may cause problems if we ever wind up with changes to the hook tests. A minor cleanup makes the test more safe on all systems, by conforming to accepted printf conventions. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-01-30 07:21:56 +01:00
printf %s "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 09:28:16 +01:00
cat - >$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.stdin
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
echo STDOUT pre-receive
echo STDERR pre-receive >&2
EOF
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
chmod u+x victim.git/hooks/pre-receive
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
cat >victim.git/hooks/update <<'EOF'
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
#!/bin/sh
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
echo "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/update.args
Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401 We only care about getting what should be an empty string and sending it to a file, without a trailing LF, so the empty string translates into a 0 byte file. Earlier when I originally wrote these lines Mac OS X allowed the format string of printf to be the empty string, but more recent versions appear to have been 'improved' with error messages if the format is not given. This may cause problems if we ever wind up with changes to the hook tests. A minor cleanup makes the test more safe on all systems, by conforming to accepted printf conventions. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-01-30 07:21:56 +01:00
read x; printf %s "$x" >$GIT_DIR/update.stdin
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
echo STDOUT update $1
echo STDERR update $1 >&2
test "$1" = refs/heads/master || exit
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
EOF
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
chmod u+x victim.git/hooks/update
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
cat >victim.git/hooks/post-receive <<'EOF'
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
#!/bin/sh
Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401 We only care about getting what should be an empty string and sending it to a file, without a trailing LF, so the empty string translates into a 0 byte file. Earlier when I originally wrote these lines Mac OS X allowed the format string of printf to be the empty string, but more recent versions appear to have been 'improved' with error messages if the format is not given. This may cause problems if we ever wind up with changes to the hook tests. A minor cleanup makes the test more safe on all systems, by conforming to accepted printf conventions. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-01-30 07:21:56 +01:00
printf %s "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/post-receive.args
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 09:28:16 +01:00
cat - >$GIT_DIR/post-receive.stdin
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
echo STDOUT post-receive
echo STDERR post-receive >&2
EOF
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
chmod u+x victim.git/hooks/post-receive
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
cat >victim.git/hooks/post-update <<'EOF'
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
#!/bin/sh
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
echo "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/post-update.args
Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401 We only care about getting what should be an empty string and sending it to a file, without a trailing LF, so the empty string translates into a 0 byte file. Earlier when I originally wrote these lines Mac OS X allowed the format string of printf to be the empty string, but more recent versions appear to have been 'improved' with error messages if the format is not given. This may cause problems if we ever wind up with changes to the hook tests. A minor cleanup makes the test more safe on all systems, by conforming to accepted printf conventions. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-01-30 07:21:56 +01:00
read x; printf %s "$x" >$GIT_DIR/post-update.stdin
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
echo STDOUT post-update
echo STDERR post-update >&2
EOF
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
chmod u+x victim.git/hooks/post-update
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success push '
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
test_must_fail git send-pack --force ./victim.git \
t/: Use "test_must_fail git" instead of "! git" This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git". This is useful to - make sure the test does not fail because of a signal, e.g. SIGSEGV, and - advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests. Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-07-12 17:47:52 +02:00
master tofail >send.out 2>send.err
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'updated as expected' '
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
test $(GIT_DIR=victim.git git rev-parse master) = $commit1 &&
test $(GIT_DIR=victim.git git rev-parse tofail) = $commit1
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'hooks ran' '
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
test -f victim.git/pre-receive.args &&
test -f victim.git/pre-receive.stdin &&
test -f victim.git/update.args &&
test -f victim.git/update.stdin &&
test -f victim.git/post-receive.args &&
test -f victim.git/post-receive.stdin &&
test -f victim.git/post-update.args &&
test -f victim.git/post-update.stdin
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
'
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 09:28:16 +01:00
test_expect_success 'pre-receive hook input' '
(echo $commit0 $commit1 refs/heads/master;
echo $commit1 $commit0 refs/heads/tofail
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
) | test_cmp - victim.git/pre-receive.stdin
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
'
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
test_expect_success 'update hook arguments' '
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
(echo refs/heads/master $commit0 $commit1;
echo refs/heads/tofail $commit1 $commit0
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
) | test_cmp - victim.git/update.args
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
'
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 09:28:16 +01:00
test_expect_success 'post-receive hook input' '
echo $commit0 $commit1 refs/heads/master |
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
test_cmp - victim.git/post-receive.stdin
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
'
test_expect_success 'post-update hook arguments' '
echo refs/heads/master |
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
test_cmp - victim.git/post-update.args
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
'
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
test_expect_success 'all hook stdin is /dev/null' '
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
! test -s victim.git/update.stdin &&
! test -s victim.git/post-update.stdin
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
'
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 09:28:16 +01:00
test_expect_success 'all *-receive hook args are empty' '
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 03:01:29 +01:00
! test -s victim.git/pre-receive.args &&
! test -s victim.git/post-receive.args
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 09:28:16 +01:00
'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success 'send-pack produced no output' '
! test -s send.out
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
'
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
cat <<EOF >expect
receive-pack: Send hook output over side band #2 If the client requests to enable side-band-64k capability we can safely send any hook stdout or stderr data down side band #2, so the client can present it to the user. If side-band-64k isn't enabled, hooks continue to inherit stderr from the parent receive-pack process. When the side band channel is being used the push client will wind up prefixing all server messages with "remote: ", just like fetch does, so our test vector has to be updated with the new expected output. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-05 21:57:42 +01:00
remote: STDOUT pre-receive
remote: STDERR pre-receive
remote: STDOUT update refs/heads/master
remote: STDERR update refs/heads/master
remote: STDOUT update refs/heads/tofail
remote: STDERR update refs/heads/tofail
receive-pack: Send internal errors over side-band #2 If the client has requested side-band-64k capability, send any of the internal error or warning messages in the muxed side-band stream using the same band as our hook output, band #2. By putting everything in one stream we ensure all messages are processed by the side-band demuxer, avoiding interleaving between our own stderr and the side-band demuxer's stderr buffers. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 18:34:12 +01:00
remote: error: hook declined to update refs/heads/tofail
receive-pack: Send hook output over side band #2 If the client requests to enable side-band-64k capability we can safely send any hook stdout or stderr data down side band #2, so the client can present it to the user. If side-band-64k isn't enabled, hooks continue to inherit stderr from the parent receive-pack process. When the side band channel is being used the push client will wind up prefixing all server messages with "remote: ", just like fetch does, so our test vector has to be updated with the new expected output. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-05 21:57:42 +01:00
remote: STDOUT post-receive
remote: STDERR post-receive
remote: STDOUT post-update
remote: STDERR post-update
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 22:52:05 +01:00
EOF
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
test_expect_success 'send-pack stderr contains hook messages' '
receive-pack: Send hook output over side band #2 If the client requests to enable side-band-64k capability we can safely send any hook stdout or stderr data down side band #2, so the client can present it to the user. If side-band-64k isn't enabled, hooks continue to inherit stderr from the parent receive-pack process. When the side band channel is being used the push client will wind up prefixing all server messages with "remote: ", just like fetch does, so our test vector has to be updated with the new expected output. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-05 21:57:42 +01:00
grep ^remote: send.err | sed "s/ *\$//" >actual &&
receive-pack: Send internal errors over side-band #2 If the client has requested side-band-64k capability, send any of the internal error or warning messages in the muxed side-band stream using the same band as our hook output, band #2. By putting everything in one stream we ensure all messages are processed by the side-band demuxer, avoiding interleaving between our own stderr and the side-band demuxer's stderr buffers. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 18:34:12 +01:00
test_cmp expect actual
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 08:20:23 +01:00
'
test_done
Copy permalink