Minor bug in git branch --set-upstream-to adding superfluous branch section to config

Minor bug in git branch --set-upstream-to adding superfluous branch section to config

[Phil Haack]

Hello there! Please /cc me with responses as I'm not on the mailing list.

I'm using git version 1.8.1.msysgit.1 and I ran into a very minor issue. It
doesn't actually seem to affect operations, but I thought I'd report it in case
someone felt it was worth cleaning up.

If you run the following set of commands:

    git checkout -b some-branch
    git push origin some-branch
    git branch --set-upstream-to origin/some-branch
    git branch --unset-upstream some-branch
    git branch --set-upstream-to origin/some-branch

You get the following result in the .git\config file

    [branch "some-branch"]
    [branch "some-branch"]
        remote = origin
        merge = refs/heads/some-branch

My expectation is that the very last call to: git branch --set-upstream-to
would not add a new config section, but would instead insert this information
into the existing [branch "some-branch"].

In any case, from what I understand the current behavior is technically valid
and I haven't encountered any adverse effects. It was just something I noticed
while testing.

Thanks!

Re: Minor bug in git branch --set-upstream-to adding superfluous branch section to config

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:29:14AM -0700, Phil Haack wrote:

> If you run the following set of commands:
> 
>     git checkout -b some-branch
>     git push origin some-branch
>     git branch --set-upstream-to origin/some-branch
>     git branch --unset-upstream some-branch
>     git branch --set-upstream-to origin/some-branch
> 
> You get the following result in the .git\config file
> 
>     [branch "some-branch"]
>     [branch "some-branch"]
>         remote = origin
>         merge = refs/heads/some-branch
> 
> My expectation is that the very last call to: git branch --set-upstream-to
> would not add a new config section, but would instead insert this information
> into the existing [branch "some-branch"].

Yes, this is a known issue[1] in the config-editing code. There are
actually two separate problems. Try this:

  $ git config -f foo section.one 1
  $ cat foo
  [section]
          one = 1

Looking good so far...

  $ git config -f foo --unset section.one
  $ cat foo
  [section]

Oops, it would have been nice to clean up that now-empty section. Now
let's re-add...

  $ git config -f foo section.two 2
  $ cat foo
  [section]
  [section]
          two = 2

Oops, it would have been nice to use the existing section. What happens
if we add again...

  $ git config -f foo section.three 3
  $ cat foo
  [section]
  [section]
          two = 2
          three = 3

Now that one worked. I think what happens is that the config editor runs
through the files linearly, munging whatever lines necessary for the
requested operation, and leaving everything else untouched (as it must,
to leave comments and whitespace intact). But it does not keep a
look-behind buffer to realize that a section name is now obsolete (which
we don't know until we get to the next section, or to EOF). In the worst
case, this buffer can grow arbitrarily large, like:

  [foo]
  # the above section is now empty
  # but we have to read through all of
  # these comments to actually
  # realize it
  [bar]

In practice it should not be a big deal (and I do not think it is an
interesting attack vector for somebody trying to run you out of memory).

That brings up another point, which is that comments may get misplaced
by deletion. But that's the case for any modification we do to the file,
since we cannot understand the semantics of comments that say things
like "the line below does X".

So that's the first bug. The second one is, I suspect, just laziness. We
notice that section.two is set, and put section.three after it. But we
do not make the same trigger for just "section". That's probably much
easier to fix.

> In any case, from what I understand the current behavior is technically valid
> and I haven't encountered any adverse effects. It was just something I noticed
> while testing.

Yes, the config files generated by these operations parse as you would
expect them to. I think it's purely an aesthetic concern.

-Peff

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/208113

Re: Minor bug in git branch --set-upstream-to adding superfluous branch section to config

[Thomas Rast]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I think what happens is that the config editor runs
> through the files linearly, munging whatever lines necessary for the
> requested operation, and leaving everything else untouched (as it must,
> to leave comments and whitespace intact). But it does not keep a
> look-behind buffer to realize that a section name is now obsolete (which
> we don't know until we get to the next section, or to EOF). In the worst
> case, this buffer can grow arbitrarily large, like:
>
>   [foo]
>   # the above section is now empty
>   # but we have to read through all of
>   # these comments to actually
>   # realize it
>   [bar]

If we treat this case as having a bunch of comments that make the
section non-empty, then we both avoid needing an arbitrarily large
lookbehind and deleting the user's precious comments...

I.e. the rule would be that we only delete the section if there is
nothing but whitespace until the next section header.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch

Re: Minor bug in git branch --set-upstream-to adding superfluous branch section to config

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 06:20:28PM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > I think what happens is that the config editor runs
> > through the files linearly, munging whatever lines necessary for the
> > requested operation, and leaving everything else untouched (as it must,
> > to leave comments and whitespace intact). But it does not keep a
> > look-behind buffer to realize that a section name is now obsolete (which
> > we don't know until we get to the next section, or to EOF). In the worst
> > case, this buffer can grow arbitrarily large, like:
> >
> >   [foo]
> >   # the above section is now empty
> >   # but we have to read through all of
> >   # these comments to actually
> >   # realize it
> >   [bar]
> 
> If we treat this case as having a bunch of comments that make the
> section non-empty, then we both avoid needing an arbitrarily large
> lookbehind and deleting the user's precious comments...
> 
> I.e. the rule would be that we only delete the section if there is
> nothing but whitespace until the next section header.

I think that is sane. Technically it does not remove the need for the
buffer, unless we are also collapsing whitespace (which I think is
probably a sane thing to do, too). I'm looking at a patch now...

-Peff

[PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

[Jeff King]

The config-editing code used by "git config var value" is
built around the regular config callback parser, whose only
triggerable item is an actual key. As a result, it does not
know anything about section headers, which can result in
unnecessarily ugly output:

  1. When we delete the last key in a section, we should be
     able to delete the section header.

  2. When we add a key into a section, we should be able to
     reuse the same section header, even if that section did
     not have any keys in it already.

Unfortunately, fixing these is not trivial with the current
code. It would involve the config parser recording and
passing back information on each item it finds, including
headers, keys, and even comments (or even better, generating
an actual in-memory parse-tree).

Since these behaviors do not cause any functional problems
(i.e., the resulting config parses as expected, it is just
uglier than one would like), fixing them can wait until
somebody feels like substantially refactoring the parsing
code. In the meantime, let's document them as known issues
with some tests.

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
I had hoped this would be a quick fix, but it really isn't. I'm happy
enough if somebody wants to try to work on it, but I think the only
clean fix is going to involve a rewrite of the parsing code, so I'm
willing to let it go for now.

Junio, note that this conflicts semantically (but not textually) with
the tip of jc/apply-ws-fix-tab-in-indent, which refactors q_to_tab into
qz_to_tab_space.

 t/t1300-repo-config.sh | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
index 3c96fda..d62facb 100755
--- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
+++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
@@ -1087,4 +1087,36 @@ test_expect_success 'barf on incomplete string' '
 	grep " line 3 " error
 '
 
+# good section hygiene
+test_expect_failure 'unsetting the last key in a section removes header' '
+	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
+	[section]
+	# some intervening lines
+	# that should be saved
+	key = value
+	EOF
+
+	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
+	# some intervening lines
+	# that should be saved
+	EOF
+
+	git config --unset section.key &&
+	test_cmp expect .git/config
+'
+
+test_expect_failure 'adding a key into an empty section reuses header' '
+	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
+	[section]
+	EOF
+
+	q_to_tab >expect <<-\EOF &&
+	[section]
+	Qkey = value
+	EOF
+
+	git config section.key value
+	test_cmp expect .git/config
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
1.8.2.13.g0f18d3c

Re: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> index 3c96fda..d62facb 100755
> --- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> +++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> @@ -1087,4 +1087,36 @@ test_expect_success 'barf on incomplete string' '
>  	grep " line 3 " error
>  '
>  
> +# good section hygiene
> +test_expect_failure 'unsetting the last key in a section removes header' '
> +	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
> +	[section]
> +	# some intervening lines
> +	# that should be saved
> +	key = value
> +	EOF
> +
> +	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> +	# some intervening lines
> +	# that should be saved
> +	EOF

I do not know if I agree with this expectation.

Most likely these comments are about the section, and possibly even
are specific to section.key, not applicable to the section in
general).  If we _were_ to remove the section header at this point,
we should be removing the comment two out of three cases (if it is
about section.key, it should go when section.key goes; if it is
about section, it should go when section goes; if it is a more
generic comment about this configuration file, it should stay).

A better approach may be to only insist on the "when adding, reuse
an empty section header" side of the coin.  Then we do not have to
worry about "we keep cruft that talks about some section but what
the comment says is illegible now the crucial bit of information,
section name the comment talks about, is gone".

> +
> +	git config --unset section.key &&
> +	test_cmp expect .git/config
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_failure 'adding a key into an empty section reuses header' '
> +	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
> +	[section]
> +	EOF
> +
> +	q_to_tab >expect <<-\EOF &&
> +	[section]
> +	Qkey = value
> +	EOF
> +
> +	git config section.key value
> +	test_cmp expect .git/config
> +'

This side I would agree it is unconditionally a good thing to do.

Re: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:51:51AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > +	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> > +	# some intervening lines
> > +	# that should be saved
> > +	EOF
> 
> I do not know if I agree with this expectation.
> 
> Most likely these comments are about the section, and possibly even
> are specific to section.key, not applicable to the section in
> general).  If we _were_ to remove the section header at this point,
> we should be removing the comment two out of three cases (if it is
> about section.key, it should go when section.key goes; if it is
> about section, it should go when section goes; if it is a more
> generic comment about this configuration file, it should stay).

I agree that probably makes more sense (I actually wrote the test before
responding to Thomas, and then got bogged down in the code change and
forgot to update it when I decided to give up).

> A better approach may be to only insist on the "when adding, reuse
> an empty section header" side of the coin.  Then we do not have to
> worry about "we keep cruft that talks about some section but what
> the comment says is illegible now the crucial bit of information,
> section name the comment talks about, is gone".

I think they are two separate problems. They happen to combine to
produce the behavior that Phil reported, but I would still expect
"--unset" not to leave cruft. It makes sense to document to me to
document both via tests; even if we end up tweaking the expected
behavior when the fix is actually implemented, the presence of the test
still serves as a reminder of the issue.

Here it is with the updated expectation. I don't care _that_ much, so if
you feel strongly and want to drop the first test, feel free.

-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

The config-editing code used by "git config var value" is
built around the regular config callback parser, whose only
triggerable item is an actual key. As a result, it does not
know anything about section headers, which can result in
unnecessarily ugly output:

  1. When we delete the last key in a section, we should be
     able to delete the section header.

  2. When we add a key into a section, we should be able to
     reuse the same section header, even if that section did
     not have any keys in it already.

Unfortunately, fixing these is not trivial with the current
code. It would involve the config parser recording and
passing back information on each item it finds, including
headers, keys, and even comments (or even better, generating
an actual in-memory parse-tree).

Since these behaviors do not cause any functional problems
(i.e., the resulting config parses as expected, it is just
uglier than one would like), fixing them can wait until
somebody feels like substantially refactoring the parsing
code. In the meantime, let's document them as known issues
with some tests.

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
 t/t1300-repo-config.sh | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
index 3c96fda..213e5a8 100755
--- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
+++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
@@ -1087,4 +1087,34 @@ test_expect_success 'barf on incomplete string' '
 	grep " line 3 " error
 '
 
+# good section hygiene
+test_expect_failure 'unsetting the last key in a section removes header' '
+	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
+	[section]
+	# some intervening lines
+	# that should also be dropped
+
+	key = value
+	EOF
+
+	>expect &&
+
+	git config --unset section.key &&
+	test_cmp expect .git/config
+'
+
+test_expect_failure 'adding a key into an empty section reuses header' '
+	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
+	[section]
+	EOF
+
+	q_to_tab >expect <<-\EOF &&
+	[section]
+	Qkey = value
+	EOF
+
+	git config section.key value
+	test_cmp expect .git/config
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
1.8.2.rc3.27.g5c55d5c

Re: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> Here it is with the updated expectation. I don't care _that_ much, so if
> you feel strongly and want to drop the first test, feel free.

As long as we are adding expect_failure without an immediate fix,
let's document the ideal, with this patch on top.

 t/t1300-repo-config.sh | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
index 213e5a8..133f26d 100755
--- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
+++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
@@ -1089,16 +1089,20 @@ test_expect_success 'barf on incomplete string' '
 
 # good section hygiene
 test_expect_failure 'unsetting the last key in a section removes header' '
 	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
+	# some generic comment on the configuration file itself
+	# a comment specific to this "section" section.
 	[section]
 	# some intervening lines
 	# that should also be dropped
 
 	key = value
 	EOF
 
-	>expect &&
+	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
+	# some generic comment on the configuration file itself
+	EOF
 
 	git config --unset section.key &&
 	test_cmp expect .git/config
 '

Re: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:35:22PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > Here it is with the updated expectation. I don't care _that_ much, so if
> > you feel strongly and want to drop the first test, feel free.
> 
> As long as we are adding expect_failure without an immediate fix,
> let's document the ideal, with this patch on top.
> [...]
>  test_expect_failure 'unsetting the last key in a section removes header' '
>  	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
> +	# some generic comment on the configuration file itself
> +	# a comment specific to this "section" section.
>  	[section]
>  	# some intervening lines
>  	# that should also be dropped
>  
>  	key = value
>  	EOF
>  
> -	>expect &&
> +	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> +	# some generic comment on the configuration file itself
> +	EOF

I think we may not attain that ideal without some natural language
processing of the comments. But hey, no reason not to shoot for the
stars. :)

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Peff,

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Jeff King wrote:

> Subject: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor
>
> [...]
> 
> diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> index 3c96fda..213e5a8 100755
> --- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> +++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> @@ -1087,4 +1087,34 @@ test_expect_success 'barf on incomplete string' '
>  	grep " line 3 " error
>  '
>  
> +# good section hygiene
> +test_expect_failure 'unsetting the last key in a section removes header' '
> +	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
> +	[section]
> +	# some intervening lines
> +	# that should also be dropped
> +
> +	key = value
> +	EOF
> +
> +	>expect &&
> +
> +	git config --unset section.key &&
> +	test_cmp expect .git/config
> +'

This would have been good on its own. This documents what a user may
expect, and it is a reasonable expectation.

However, Junio, what you suggested in addition *and squashed in before
merging to `master`*, is not a reasonable expectation. If you are asking
*code* to determine that in a config like this, the second line is a
comment belonging to the section, and the first line is not, that is
totally unreasonable:

        # some generic comment on the configuration file itself
        # a comment specific to this "section" section.
        [section]
        # some intervening lines
        # that should also be dropped

        key = value
        # please be careful when you update the above variable


Worse: it does *not* demonstrate a known breakage, at least not precisely,
as what you ask here *is not technically possible*. Not even with NLP, at
least if you drive for 100%. It's just not.

And your example is not even complete, as this is a totally valid config:

	[core]
		; These settings affect many Git operations; be careful
		; what you change here

		key = value

Obviously, your example gives the impression that `git config --unset
core.key` shoud *delete* that comment (that obviously is intended to
document the section, not the `key` value).

And this is bad, really bad. And this comment does not make it better:

	I think we may not attain that ideal without some natural language
	processing of the comments. But hey, no reason not to shoot for the
	stars. :)

There *is* a reason, a very good reason *not* to shoot for the stars.

Think about it. The `test_expect_failure` function is intended to
demonstrate bugs, and once those bugs are fixed, the _failure should be
turned into _success. And if somebody looks for work, they can look for
test_expect_failure and find tons of micro-projects.

What you did there was to change some valid demonstration of a bug that
can be fixed to something that cannot be fixed. So if an occasional lurker
comes along, sees what you expect to be fixed, they would have said
"Whoa!" and you lost a contribution.

Let's avoid such a "shoot for the stars [... and get nothing, not even an
incremental improvement in return...]" in the future.

On a positive note: I just finished work on a set of patches addressing
this:
https://github.com/git/git/compare/master...dscho:empty-config-section (I
plan on submitting this tomorrow)

Ciao,
Dscho

P.S.: While I am already raising awareness about unintended consequences,
let me also add this: that "cute" feature that unambiguous abbreviations
of options are allowed bit me royally today. Try this: `git config
--remove section.key`. And then be surprised that it does not work, even
if you have that entry. The reason? The option `--remove` is a unique
abbreviation of `--remove-section`, so even if I clearly meant `--unset`,
that feature (that every Git user I tell about it is very surprised to
hear about, so it is not like it is helping a lot of users) has the
unintended consequence of being completely wrong. It would have been
better to tell me that there is no `--remove` option.

Re: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

[Jeff King]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:33:55PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > Subject: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

This is an old one. :) I had to go look up the old thread to refresh
myself.

> [...]
> Obviously, your example gives the impression that `git config --unset
> core.key` shoud *delete* that comment (that obviously is intended to
> document the section, not the `key` value).
> 
> And this is bad, really bad. And this comment does not make it better:
> 
> 	I think we may not attain that ideal without some natural language
> 	processing of the comments. But hey, no reason not to shoot for the
> 	stars. :)
> 
> There *is* a reason, a very good reason *not* to shoot for the stars.

I think you are reading more into my comment than was intended. No, I
don't think we plan to implement a sufficiently advanced AI to cover all
these cases. But as I said in the thread:

  It makes sense to me to document both via tests; even if we end up
  tweaking the expected behavior when the fix is actually implemented,
  the presence of the test still serves as a reminder of the issue.

So it was always intended for this test to give a general sense of the
problem, from which somebody interested could dig further and work on
it.

Probably the commit message could have made this more clear (or even an
in-code comment).

> Think about it. The `test_expect_failure` function is intended to
> demonstrate bugs, and once those bugs are fixed, the _failure should be
> turned into _success. And if somebody looks for work, they can look for
> test_expect_failure and find tons of micro-projects.
> 
> What you did there was to change some valid demonstration of a bug that
> can be fixed to something that cannot be fixed. So if an occasional lurker
> comes along, sees what you expect to be fixed, they would have said
> "Whoa!" and you lost a contribution.

Hypothetically, you may be right. But don't all bugs have some element
of this? People can find an expect_failure as a starting point, but
they'll have to dig into the background and history of the bug if they
want to know the subtleties. This one is just more subtle than some
others.

> On a positive note: I just finished work on a set of patches addressing
> this:
> https://github.com/git/git/compare/master...dscho:empty-config-section (I
> plan on submitting this tomorrow)

Great. If your series throws away my test and replaces it with something
more attainable (preferably with expect_success ;) ), I think that is
certainly a positive change.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] t1300: document some aesthetic failures of the config editor

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> ...  If we _were_ to remove the section header at this point,
> we should be removing the comment two out of three cases (if it is
> about section.key, it should go when section.key goes; if it is
> about section, it should go when section goes; if it is a more
> generic comment about this configuration file, it should stay).

The last case should end more like this:

	..., it should stay, but why are you writing a comment that
	is not specific to this section _inside_ the section in the
	first place???

Another case we have to worry about, if we were to remove an empty
section header is this case:

	# Now, let's list all the remotes I interact with.

        # This is where I push all the separate topics.
        [remote "github"]
		# fetch like everybody else without auth
		url = git://github.com/user/git
		# push with auth
                pushURL = github.com:user/git
		# publish the state of my primary working area as-is
                mirror

	# Traditional "canonical" one
	[remote "korg"]
        	url = k.org:/pub/scm/user/git

If I were to retire "github" account, removing the section while
keeping the comments would be confusing (I do not push all the
separate topics to korg).  Removing the section while removing the
comments that pertain to the section is impossible; "Now, let's list
all the remotes" should stay, "This is where I push" should go.

Removing only the keys and keeping the skelton around would give us:

	# Now, let's list all the remotes I interact with.

        # This is where I push all the separate topics.
        [remote "github"]
		# fetch like everybody else without auth
		# push with auth
		# publish the state of my primary working area as-is

	# Traditional "canonical" one
	[remote "korg"]
        	url = k.org:/pub/scm/user/git

which is still confusing, but at least the confusion is not spread
to adjacent sections.

Re: Minor bug in git branch --set-upstream-to adding superfluous branch section to config

[Junio C Hamano]

Phil Haack <haacked@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello there! Please /cc me with responses as I'm not on the mailing list.
>
> I'm using git version 1.8.1.msysgit.1 and I ran into a very minor issue. It
> doesn't actually seem to affect operations, but I thought I'd report it in case
> someone felt it was worth cleaning up.

I do not think this is limited to "branch --set-whatever".

> If you run the following set of commands:
>
>     git checkout -b some-branch
>     git push origin some-branch
>     git branch --set-upstream-to origin/some-branch
>     git branch --unset-upstream some-branch

This step causes the removal of the last variable in a configuration
section, which leaves an empty section.  As the code to add a new
variable to the configuration, trying to reuse an existing section
header, does not pay attention to an empty section, you end up with
an empty section, followed by a new one.

Either removal of configuration variable should be taught to remove
the section header when a section becomes empty, or addition of
configuration variable should be taught to notice an empty section
header.



>     git branch --set-upstream-to origin/some-branch
>
> You get the following result in the .git\config file
>
>     [branch "some-branch"]
>     [branch "some-branch"]
>         remote = origin
>         merge = refs/heads/some-branch