From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233F71F461 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:44:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728065AbfGJRob (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:44:31 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:63664 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727416AbfGJRoa (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:44:30 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D0462AB5; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:44:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BbJsxgII/RD78oTv7QZCiQKWpN0=; b=nL7+6m VKIPT3i4kTE+cpoyH3Nfy1dLnNMF75JLsdGd4rZwFe8Rrb3tuLmZVR5++AvMezXw FBSjIWSLAIo0bbxWXAlAkjoj6wX9AFR+wdqipe2NzdBizWMNiyrKp9USSqAT2Pwa BbRFqKObKxVPmhF5U7bg52XL6Q31dOEuXluNc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=uAtxdYQV54+wg6PP0frDvG/0M8Fuh/Jk d+nI1OtZFYc6Ii7JryM8DqeEYvBV939x8QC4l/CtQXZ+WrWt3n3qi9R9lhYHJGc2 XB6Ao+9Mv3NHJ1o2F0Lgf7t19qpj7WQlIc3yIMPDcL3puSggs4utxh58PKnpeIpW 65OKg+45JxI= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5E562AB3; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:44:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5808662AB2; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:44:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Emily Shaffer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] transport-helper: enforce atomic in push_refs_with_push References: <20190709211043.48597-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:44:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190709211043.48597-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> (Emily Shaffer's message of "Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:10:43 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5B1FA544-A33A-11E9-B6B2-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Emily Shaffer writes: > +test_expect_success 'push --atomic also prevents branch creation, reports collateral' ' > + # Setup upstream repo - empty for now > + d=$HTTPD_DOCUMENT_ROOT_PATH/atomic-branches.git && > + git init --bare "$d" && > + test_config -C "$d" http.receivepack true && > + up="$HTTPD_URL"/smart/atomic-branches.git && > + > + # Tell up about two branches for now -ECANTPARSE "Tell up" part. > + test_commit atomic1 && > + test_commit atomic2 && > + git branch collateral && > + git push "$up" master collateral && OK, so an initially empty directory $d that appears to network clients as $up now has two branches, 'master' and 'collateral', both pointing at the same history that ends with two commits, atomic2 whose parent is atomic1. > + # collateral is a valid push, but should be failed by atomic push > + git checkout collateral && > + test_commit collateral1 && > + > + # Make master incompatible with upstream to provoke atomic > + git checkout master && > + git reset --hard HEAD^ && collateral grows, master rewinds. > + # Add a new branch which should be failed by atomic push. This is a > + # regression case. > + git branch atomic && Another branch atomic is added > + # --atomic should cause entire push to be rejected > + test_must_fail git push --atomic "$up" master atomic collateral 2>output && Attempt to push all three: collateral alone would be OK, so is atomic, but because master rewinds, we expect none of the three to go through. > + # the new branch should not have been created upstream > + test_must_fail git -C "$d" rev-parse refs/heads/atomic && The new branch should not have been created; if this rev-parse succeeded, it would be a bug. Up to point, I have no possible improvements to offer ;-) Very well done. > + # the failed refs should be indicated > + grep "master -> master" output | grep rejected && I'd rather see the effect, i.e. what the command did that can be observed externally, than the report, i.e. what the command claims to have done, if it is equally straight-forward to verify either. That can be done by making sure that the output from "git -C "$d" rev-parse refs/heads/master" match output from "git rev-parse atomic2", no? That ensures 'master' in the receiving end stayed the same. > + # the collateral failure refs should be indicated > + grep "atomic -> atomic" output | grep "atomic push failed" && > + grep "collateral -> collateral" output | grep "atomic push failed" Likewise for the other two. FWIW, these three can further lose a process each, i.e. grep "^ ! .*rejected.* master -> master" output even if we for some reason do not want to check the effect and take the claim by the command being tested at the face value (which I do not think is a good idea). Thanks.