1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-16 14:04:52 +01:00
git/t/t5710-info-alternate.sh

113 lines
2.3 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (C) 2006 Martin Waitz <tali@admingilde.org>
#
test_description='test transitive info/alternate entries'
. ./test-lib.sh
# test that a file is not reachable in the current repository
# but that it is after creating a info/alternate entry
reachable_via() {
alternate="$1"
file="$2"
if git cat-file -e "HEAD:$file"; then return 1; fi
echo "$alternate" >> .git/objects/info/alternate
git cat-file -e "HEAD:$file"
}
test_valid_repo() {
git fsck --full > fsck.log &&
test_line_count = 0 fsck.log
}
base_dir=`pwd`
test_expect_success 'preparing first repository' \
'test_create_repo A && cd A &&
echo "Hello World" > file1 &&
git add file1 &&
git commit -m "Initial commit" file1 &&
git repack -a -d &&
git prune'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'preparing second repository' \
'git clone -l -s A B && cd B &&
echo "foo bar" > file2 &&
git add file2 &&
git commit -m "next commit" file2 &&
git repack -a -d -l &&
git prune'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'preparing third repository' \
'git clone -l -s B C && cd C &&
echo "Goodbye, cruel world" > file3 &&
git add file3 &&
git commit -m "one more" file3 &&
git repack -a -d -l &&
git prune'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'creating too deep nesting' \
'git clone -l -s C D &&
git clone -l -s D E &&
git clone -l -s E F &&
git clone -l -s F G &&
clone: drop connectivity check for local clones Commit 0433ad1 (clone: run check_everything_connected, 2013-03-25) added the same connectivity check to clone that we use for fetching. The intent was to provide enough safety checks that "git clone git://..." could be counted on to detect bit errors and other repo corruption, and not silently propagate them to the clone. For local clones, this turns out to be a bad idea, for two reasons: 1. Local clones use hard linking (or even shared object stores), and so complete far more quickly. The time spent on the connectivity check is therefore proportionally much more painful. 2. Local clones do not actually meet our safety guarantee anyway. The connectivity check makes sure we have all of the objects we claim to, but it does not check for bit errors. We will notice bit errors in commits and trees, but we do not load blob objects at all. Whereas over the pack transport, we actually recompute the sha1 of each object in the incoming packfile; bit errors change the sha1 of the object, which is then caught by the connectivity check. This patch drops the connectivity check in the local case. Note that we have to revert the changes from 0433ad1 to t5710, as we no longer notice the corruption during clone. We could go a step further and provide a "verify even local clones" option, but it is probably not worthwhile. You can already spell that as "cd foo.git && git fsck && git clone ." or as "git clone --no-local foo.git". Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-07-08 09:30:41 +02:00
git clone --bare -l -s G H'
test_expect_success 'invalidity of deepest repository' \
'cd H && {
test_valid_repo
test $? -ne 0
}'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'validity of third repository' \
'cd C &&
test_valid_repo'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'validity of fourth repository' \
'cd D &&
test_valid_repo'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'breaking of loops' \
'echo "$base_dir"/B/.git/objects >> "$base_dir"/A/.git/objects/info/alternates&&
cd C &&
test_valid_repo'
cd "$base_dir"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$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 'that info/alternates is necessary' \
'cd C &&
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$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
rm -f .git/objects/info/alternates &&
! (test_valid_repo)'
cd "$base_dir"
test_expect_success 'that relative alternate is possible for current dir' \
'cd C &&
echo "../../../B/.git/objects" > .git/objects/info/alternates &&
test_valid_repo'
cd "$base_dir"
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$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 \
'that relative alternate is only possible for current dir' '
cd D &&
! (test_valid_repo)
'
cd "$base_dir"
test_done