Re: [PATCH RESEND] hooks: add sendemail-validate-series

[Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>]

Hi Robin

On 03/04/2023 15:32, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
> 
> Phillip Wood, Apr 03, 2023 at 16:09:
>>> +  <patch-file> LF
>>
>> Usually git commands that produce or consume paths either use quoted
>> paths terminated by LF or unquoted paths terminated by NUL. That way
>> there is no ambiguity when a path contains LF.
> 
> I had never imagined that some twisted mind would insert LF in path
> names but since nothing will forbid it, I agree that it is
> a possibility.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by quoted paths, you mean adding literal
> double quotes before printing them to the hook stdin? That means the
> hook needs to handle de-quoting after reading, right?

I meant quoted in the same way that diff and ls-files etc quote paths 
that contain control characters - see quote_c_style() in quote.c if 
you're interested in the details. It looks like Git.pm can unquote paths 
but has no code to quote them. It is probably easiest to use NUL 
termination here - bash and zsh can read NUL terminated lines and so can 
any scripting language.

>>> diff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl
>>> index 07f2a0cbeaad..bec4d0f4ab47 100755
>>> --- a/git-send-email.perl
>>> +++ b/git-send-email.perl
>>> @@ -800,6 +800,7 @@ sub is_format_patch_arg {
>>>    			validate_patch($f, $target_xfer_encoding);
>>>    		}
>>>    	}
>>> +	validate_patch_series(@files)
>>
>> This happens fairly early, before the user has had a chance to edit the
>> patches and before we have added all the recipient and in-reply-to
>> headers to the patch files. Would it be more useful to validate what
>> will actually be sent?
> 
> I agree that it would be better. I added the check here to be in line
> with the existing sendemail-validate hook. I could move it after edition
> and header finalization but then we would need to move
> sendemail-validate as well for consistency. What do you think?

That would be my inclination but I'm only an occasional send-email user. 
The downside is that the user may edit a patch only for it to be 
rejected but we could offer for them to edit it again rather than just 
throwing their work away.

>>> +	# The hook needs a correct cwd and GIT_DIR.
>>> +	require Cwd;
>>> +	my $cwd_save = Cwd::getcwd();
>>> +	chdir($repo->wc_path() or $repo->repo_path()) or die("chdir: $!");
>>> +	local $ENV{"GIT_DIR"} = $repo->repo_path();
>>
>> This looks like it is copied from the existing code but why do we need
>> to do this? I'm struggling to come up with a scenario where "git
>> send-email" can find the repository but the hook cannot.
> 
> Again, for consistency I assumed it would be best to keep the code
> similar in both hooks. If you think it is safe to skip that check, I'll
> remove it gladly.

I suspect it is safe, hopefully someone will speak up if I'm mistaken. A 
while ago rebase stopped setting these variables when running an "exec" 
command as they were causing problems (see 434e0636db (sequencer: do not 
export GIT_DIR and GIT_WORK_TREE for 'exec', 2021-12-04))

>>> +	# cannot use git hook run, it closes stdin before forking the hook
>>> +	open(my $stdin, "|-", $validate_hook) or die("fork: $!");
>>
>> This passes $validate_hook to the shell to execute which is not what we
>> want as it will split the hook path on whitespace etc. I think it would
>> be better to use "git hook run --to-stdin" (see 0414b3891c (hook:
>> support a --to-stdin=<path> option, 2023-02-08))
> 
> Ah that's a nice addition. I'll add that in v2.

That's great, Best Wishes

Phillip

> Thanks for reviewing!