[PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Slavica]

This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured.
The issue is discussed here: https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u.

Signed-off-by: Slavica <slawica92@hotmail.com>
---
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index 9e06494ba0..9ff34a65bc 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1156,4 +1156,21 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
 	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
 '
 
+test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' '
+    test_commit 1 &&
+    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
+    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
+    (
+        HOME=$(pwd)/none &&
+        export HOME &&
+        unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
+        unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
+        unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
+        unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
+        test_must_fail git config user.email &&
+        echo changed >1.t &&
+		git stash
+    )
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
2.19.1.windows.1

Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Christian Couder]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:35 PM Slavica <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured.
> The issue is discussed here: https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u.

We prefer commit messages that contain as much as possible all the
information necessary to understand the patch without links to other
places.

It seems that only this email from you reached me. Did you send other
emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3?

[...]

> +    (
> +        HOME=$(pwd)/none &&
> +        export HOME &&
> +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
> +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
> +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
> +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
> +        test_must_fail git config user.email &&
> +        echo changed >1.t &&
> +               git stash

It seems that the above line is not indented like the previous ones.

> +    )
> +'

Thanks for contributing,
Christian.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Eric Sunshine]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:31 PM Slavica <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured.
> The issue is discussed here: https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u.

As Christian mentioned already, it's best to try to describe the issue
succinctly in the commit message so readers can understand it without
chasing a link. For this simple case, it should be sufficient to
explain that, due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably
requires 'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't.

> Signed-off-by: Slavica <slawica92@hotmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> @@ -1156,4 +1156,21 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
> +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' '

The purpose of this test is to demonstrate that git-stash has an
undesirable requirement that 'user.name' and 'user.email' be set. The
test title should reflect that. So, instead of talking about
non-existent HOME (which is just an implementation detail of the
test), a better test title would be something like "stash works when
user.name and user.email are not set".

> +    test_commit 1 &&
> +    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
> +    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
> +    (
> +        HOME=$(pwd)/none &&
> +        export HOME &&
> +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&

Use sane_unset() for all of these rather than bare 'unset'.

> +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
> +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
> +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
> +        test_must_fail git config user.email &&
> +        echo changed >1.t &&
> +               git stash

Christian already mentioned the odd indentation.

> +    )
> +'

Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Junio C Hamano]

Slavica <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:

> +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' '
> +    test_commit 1 &&
> +    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
> +    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
> +    (
> +        HOME=$(pwd)/none &&
> +        export HOME &&

What is the reason why this test needs to move HOME away from
TRASH_DIRECTORY (set in t/test-lib.sh)?

> +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
> +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
> +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
> +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
> +        test_must_fail git config user.email &&
> +        echo changed >1.t &&
> +		git stash
> +    )
> +'
> +
>  test_done

Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Slavica <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' '
> > +    test_commit 1 &&
> > +    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
> > +    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
> > +    (
> > +        HOME=$(pwd)/none &&
> > +        export HOME &&
> 
> What is the reason why this test needs to move HOME away from
> TRASH_DIRECTORY (set in t/test-lib.sh)?

This is to make sure that no user.name nor user.email is configured. That
was my idea, hence I answer your question.

Ciao,
Dscho

> 
> > +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
> > +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
> > +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
> > +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
> > +        test_must_fail git config user.email &&
> > +        echo changed >1.t &&
> > +		git stash
> > +    )
> > +'
> > +
> >  test_done
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Slavica <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' '
>> > +    test_commit 1 &&
>> > +    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
>> > +    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
>> > +    (
>> > +        HOME=$(pwd)/none &&
>> > +        export HOME &&
>> 
>> What is the reason why this test needs to move HOME away from
>> TRASH_DIRECTORY (set in t/test-lib.sh)?
>
> This is to make sure that no user.name nor user.email is configured. That
> was my idea, hence I answer your question.

HOME is set to TRASH_DIRECTORY in t/test-lib.sh already, and we do
so to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the
user who happens to be running the test suite.

With that in place for ages, this test still moves HOME away from
TRASH_DIRECTORY, and that is totally unnecessary if it is only done
to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the user.
After all, this single test is not unique in its need to avoid
reading from user's $HOME/.gitconfig---so I expected there may be
other reasons.

That is why I asked, and your response is not quite answering that
question.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Slavica]

On 23-Oct-18 8:52 PM, Christian Couder wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:35 PM Slavica <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured.
>> The issue is discussed here: https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u.
> We prefer commit messages that contain as much as possible all the
> information necessary to understand the patch without links to other
> places.
>
> It seems that only this email from you reached me. Did you send other
> emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3?
>
> [...]

Okay, I will change that. This is my first patch and I am still adapting.

Emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3 because aren't there because I am still 
preparing them.

(I didn't know if I had 3 patches in plan that they should be sent at 
almost the same time.)

>
>> +    (
>> +        HOME=$(pwd)/none &&
>> +        export HOME &&
>> +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
>> +        unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
>> +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
>> +        unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
>> +        test_must_fail git config user.email &&
>> +        echo changed >1.t &&
>> +               git stash
> It seems that the above line is not indented like the previous ones.
I don't know what is the reason, in my IDE everything seems fine, but 
I'll fix it.
>
>> +    )
>> +'
> Thanks for contributing,
> Christian.

You are welcome,

Slavica

>
>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> Slavica <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > +test_expect_failure 'stash with HOME as non-existing directory' '
> >> > +    test_commit 1 &&
> >> > +    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
> >> > +    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
> >> > +    (
> >> > +        HOME=$(pwd)/none &&
> >> > +        export HOME &&
> >> 
> >> What is the reason why this test needs to move HOME away from
> >> TRASH_DIRECTORY (set in t/test-lib.sh)?
> >
> > This is to make sure that no user.name nor user.email is configured. That
> > was my idea, hence I answer your question.
> 
> HOME is set to TRASH_DIRECTORY in t/test-lib.sh already, and we do
> so to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the
> user who happens to be running the test suite.

My bad. I should have checked. I was under the impression that we set
`HOME` to the `t/` directory and initialized it. But you are right, of
course, and that subshell as well as the override of `HOME` are absolutely
unnecessary.

Thanks,
Dscho

> 
> With that in place for ages, this test still moves HOME away from
> TRASH_DIRECTORY, and that is totally unnecessary if it is only done
> to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the user.
> After all, this single test is not unique in its need to avoid
> reading from user's $HOME/.gitconfig---so I expected there may be
> other reasons.
> 
> That is why I asked, and your response is not quite answering that
> question.
> 

[PATCH v2 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Slavica Djukic]

Changes since v1:

    *changed test title
    *removed subshell and HOME override
    *fixed weird identation
    *unset() replaced with sane_unset()

Slavica (1):
  [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

 t/t3903-stash.sh | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

-- 
2.19.1.windows.1

[PATCH v2 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Slavica Djukic]

From: Slavica <slawica92@hotmail.com>

This is part of enhancement request that ask for 'git stash' to work
even if 'user.name' and 'user.email' are not configured.
Due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably requires
'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't.
The issue is discussed here:
https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u.

Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
---
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index 9e06494ba0..048998d5ce 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1156,4 +1156,17 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
 	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
 '
 
+test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
+    test_commit 1 &&
+    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
+    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
+    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
+    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
+    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
+    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
+    test_must_fail git config user.email &&
+    echo changed >1.t &&
+    git stash
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
2.19.1.windows.1

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Eric Sunshine]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:06 PM Slavica Djukic
<slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is part of enhancement request that ask for 'git stash' to work
> even if 'user.name' and 'user.email' are not configured.
> Due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably requires
> 'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't.

Thanks for re-rolling. This version looks better. One comment below...

> Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> @@ -1156,4 +1156,17 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
> +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
> +    test_commit 1 &&
> +    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
> +    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
> +    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
> +    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
> +    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
> +    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
> +    test_must_fail git config user.email &&

Instead of simply asserting that 'user.email' is not set here, you
could instead proactively ensure that it is not set. That is, instead
of the test_must_fail(), do this:

    test_unconfig user.email &&
    test_unconfig user.name &&

> +    echo changed >1.t &&
> +    git stash
> +'
> +
>  test_done
> --
> 2.19.1.windows.1
>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

>> HOME is set to TRASH_DIRECTORY in t/test-lib.sh already, and we do
>> so to avoid getting affected by the real $HOME/.gitconfig of the
>> user who happens to be running the test suite.
>
> My bad. I should have checked. I was under the impression that we set
> `HOME` to the `t/` directory and initialized it. But you are right, of
> course, and that subshell as well as the override of `HOME` are absolutely
> unnecessary.

I was afraid that I may be missing some future plans to update
$TRASH_DIRECTORY/.gitconfig with "git config --global user.name Foo"
etc. in an earlier part of the test script, which would have made
the subshell and moving HOME elsewhere perfectly good ways to future
proof the new test being added (in which case, in-code comment to
say that near the assignment to HOME would have been a good
improvement).

Not that having them breaks the logic, but they distract the
readers by making them wonder what is going on, so I think we can do
without the subshell and assignment to HOME.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Junio C Hamano]

Slavica <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:

> On 23-Oct-18 8:52 PM, Christian Couder wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:35 PM Slavica <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured.
>>> The issue is discussed here: https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u.
>> We prefer commit messages that contain as much as possible all the
>> information necessary to understand the patch without links to other
>> places.
>>
>> It seems that only this email from you reached me. Did you send other
>> emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3?
>>
>> [...]
>
> Okay, I will change that. This is my first patch and I am still adapting.
>
> Emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3 because aren't there because I am still
> preparing them.
>
> (I didn't know if I had 3 patches in plan that they should be sent at
> almost the same time.)

It is more efficient for everybody involved.

 - You may discover that 1/3 you just (thought) finished was not
   sufficient while working on 2/3 and 3/3, and by the time you are
   pretty close to finishing 2/3 and 3/3, you may want to update 1/3
   in a big way.  Sending a premature version and having others to
   review is wasting everbody's time.

 - Your 1/3 might become perfect alone with help from others'
   reviews and your updates, but after that everybody may forget
   about it when you are ready to send out 2/3 and 3/3; if these
   three are truly related patches in a single topic, you would want
   to have what 1/3 did fresh in your reviewers' minds.  You'd have
   to find the old message of 1/3 and make 2/3 and 3/3 responses to
   it to keep them properly threaded (which may take your time), and
   reviewers need to refresh their memory by going back to 1/3
   before reviewing 2/3 and 3/3

One thing I learned twice while working in this project is that open
source development is not a race to produce and show your product as
quickly as possible.

When I was an individual contributor, the project was young and
there were many people with good and competing ideas working to
achieve more-or-less the same goal.  It felt like a competition
to get *MY* version of the vision, design and implementation over
others' adopted and one way to stay in the competition was to send
things as quickly as possible.  I didn't know better, and I think I
ended up wasting many people's time that way.

That changed when I became the maintainer, as (1) I no longer had to
race with anybody ;-), and (2) I introduced the 'pu' (proposed
update) system so that anything that was queued early can be
discarded and replaced when a better thing come within a reasonable
timeframe.

And then I re-learned the same "this is not a race" lesson a couple
of years ago, when I started working in a timezone several hours
away from the most active participants for a few months at a time.
I do not have to respond to a message I see on the list immediately,
as it is too late to catch the sender who is already in bed ;-)


So take your time and make sure what you are sending out can be
reviewed the most efficiently.  Completing 2/3 and 3/3 before
sending 1/3 out to avoid having to redo 1/3 and avoid having
reviewers to spend their time piecemeal is one thing.  Making sure
that the patch does not have style issues that distract reviewers'
attention is another.

Sitting on what you think you have completed for a few days allows
you to review your product with fresh eyes before sending them out,
which is another benefit of trying not to rush.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Junio C Hamano]

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

>> +    test_commit 1 &&
>> +    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
>> +    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
>> +    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
>> +    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
>> +    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
>> +    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
>> +    test_must_fail git config user.email &&
>
> Instead of simply asserting that 'user.email' is not set here, you
> could instead proactively ensure that it is not set. That is, instead
> of the test_must_fail(), do this:
>
>     test_unconfig user.email &&
>     test_unconfig user.name &&

Yes, it would be more in line with what is done to the environment
variables and to other configuration variables in the same block.

Not that I think that this inconsistency is end of the world ;-)

Thanks.

>> +    echo changed >1.t &&
>> +    git stash
>> +'
>> +
>>  test_done
>> --
>> 2.19.1.windows.1
>>

[PATCH v3 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Slavica Djukic]

Changes since v1:

    *changed:
	 test_must_fail git config user.email 
	 to:
	 test_unconfig user.email &&      
	 test_unconfig user.name 

	This is done to make sure that user.email and user.name are not set,
	instead of asserting it with test_must_fail config user.email.



Slavica (1):
  [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

 t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

-- 
2.19.1.windows.1

[PATCH v3 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Slavica Djukic]

From: Slavica <slawica92@hotmail.com>

This is part of enhancement request that ask for 'git stash' to work
even if 'user.name' and 'user.email' are not configured.
Due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably requires
'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't.
The issue is discussed here:
https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u.

Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
---
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index 9e06494ba0..ae2c905343 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1156,4 +1156,18 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
 	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
 '
 
+test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
+    test_commit 1 &&
+    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
+    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
+    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
+    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
+    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
+    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
+    test_unconfig user.email &&      
+    test_unconfig user.name &&
+    echo changed >1.t &&
+    git stash
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
2.19.1.windows.1

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Junio C Hamano]

Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:

> From: Slavica <slawica92@hotmail.com>

Please make sure this matches your sign-off below.

> This is part of enhancement request that ask for 'git stash' to work
> even if 'user.name' and 'user.email' are not configured.
> Due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably requires
> 'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't.
> The issue is discussed here:
> https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u.

As the four lines above summarize the issue being highlighted by the
expect-failure rather well, the last two lines are unnecessary.
Please remove them.  Alternatively, you can place them after the
three-dash lines we see below.

> Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
> ---
>  t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> index 9e06494ba0..ae2c905343 100755
> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> @@ -1156,4 +1156,18 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
>  	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
> +    test_commit 1 &&

Just being curious, but do we need a fresh commit created at this
point in the test?  Many tests before this one begin with "git reset"
and then run "git stash" without ever creating commit themselves,
instead relying on the fact that there already is at least one
commit created in the "setup" phase of the test that a "stash"
created can be made relative to.  I do not think this test is all
that special in that regard to require its own commit.

> +    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
> +    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
> +    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
> +    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
> +    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
> +    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
> +    test_unconfig user.email &&      

There are trailing whitespaces on the line above.  Please remove.

Also, Don't be original in the form alone---all other tests in this
file indent with a leading HT, not four SPs.  Please match the style
of surrounding code.

> +    test_unconfig user.name &&
> +    echo changed >1.t &&
> +    git stash
> +'
> +
>  test_done

Thanks.  Please do not reroll the next round at too rapid a pace.

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name

[Slavica Djukic]

On 26-Oct-18 3:13 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> From: Slavica <slawica92@hotmail.com>
> Please make sure this matches your sign-off below.
>
>> This is part of enhancement request that ask for 'git stash' to work
>> even if 'user.name' and 'user.email' are not configured.
>> Due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably requires
>> 'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't.
>> The issue is discussed here:
>> https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u.
> As the four lines above summarize the issue being highlighted by the
> expect-failure rather well, the last two lines are unnecessary.
> Please remove them.  Alternatively, you can place them after the
> three-dash lines we see below.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
>> ---
>>   t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
>> index 9e06494ba0..ae2c905343 100755
>> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
>> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
>> @@ -1156,4 +1156,18 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
>>   	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
>>   '
>>   
>> +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
>> +    test_commit 1 &&
> Just being curious, but do we need a fresh commit created at this
> point in the test?  Many tests before this one begin with "git reset"
> and then run "git stash" without ever creating commit themselves,
> instead relying on the fact that there already is at least one
> commit created in the "setup" phase of the test that a "stash"
> created can be made relative to.  I do not think this test is all
> that special in that regard to require its own commit.

No, we don't need fresh commit here. Thank you for this and all other 
suggestions.

I've changed test according to them.

>
>> +    test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
>> +    test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
>> +    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
>> +    sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
>> +    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
>> +    sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
>> +    test_unconfig user.email &&
> There are trailing whitespaces on the line above.  Please remove.
>
> Also, Don't be original in the form alone---all other tests in this
> file indent with a leading HT, not four SPs.  Please match the style
> of surrounding code.
>
>> +    test_unconfig user.name &&
>> +    echo changed >1.t &&
>> +    git stash
>> +'
>> +
>>   test_done
> Thanks.  Please do not reroll the next round at too rapid a pace.

I've taken my time for next round, I am working on 2/3 and 3/3 parts as 
well.
I wouldn't have sent this patch if I understood you well in previous reply.

Thank you,

Slavica.

>
>
>

[PATCH 0/3] [Outreachy] make stash work if user.name and user.email are not configured

[Slavica Djukic]

Enhancement request that ask for 'git stash' to work even if 
'user.name' and 'user.email' are not configured.
Due to an implementation detail, git-stash undesirably requires 
'user.name' and 'user.email' to be set, but shouldn't.

Slavica Djukic(3):
  [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and
    user.email
  [Outreachy] ident: introduce set_fallback_ident() function
  [Outreachy] stash: use set_fallback_ident() function

 builtin/stash.c  |  1 +
 cache.h          |  1 +
 ident.c          | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 15 +++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+)

-- 
2.19.1.windows.1

[PATCH 1/3][Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Slavica Djukic]

Add test to assert that stash fails if user.name and user.email
are not configured.
In the final commit, test will be updated to expect success.

Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
---
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index 9e06494ba0..aaff36978e 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1156,4 +1156,19 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
 	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
 '
 
+test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
+	git reset &&
+	>1 &&
+	git add 1 &&
+	test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
+	test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
+	sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
+	sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
+	sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
+	sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
+	test_unconfig user.email &&
+	test_unconfig user.name &&
+	git stash
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
2.19.1.windows.1

[PATCH 2/3] [Outreachy] ident: introduce set_fallback_ident() function

[Slavica Djukic]

Usually, when creating a commit, ident is needed to record the author
and commiter.
But, when there is commit not intended to published, e.g. when stashing
changes,  valid ident is not necessary.
To allow creating commits in such scenario, let's introduce helper
function "set_fallback_ident(), which will pre-load the ident.

In following commit, set_fallback_ident() function will be called in stash.

Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
---
 cache.h |  1 +
 ident.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
index 681307f716..6b5b559a05 100644
--- a/cache.h
+++ b/cache.h
@@ -1470,6 +1470,7 @@ extern const char *git_sequence_editor(void);
 extern const char *git_pager(int stdout_is_tty);
 extern int is_terminal_dumb(void);
 extern int git_ident_config(const char *, const char *, void *);
+void set_fallback_ident(const char *name, const char *email);
 extern void reset_ident_date(void);
 
 struct ident_split {
diff --git a/ident.c b/ident.c
index 33bcf40644..410bd495e9 100644
--- a/ident.c
+++ b/ident.c
@@ -505,6 +505,23 @@ int git_ident_config(const char *var, const char *value, void *data)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+void set_fallback_ident(const char *name, const char *email)
+{
+	if (!git_default_name.len) {
+		strbuf_addstr(&git_default_name, name);
+		committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_NAME_GIVEN;
+		author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_NAME_GIVEN;
+		ident_config_given |= IDENT_NAME_GIVEN;
+	}
+
+	if (!git_default_email.len) {
+		strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email);
+		committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN;
+		author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN;
+		ident_config_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN;
+	}
+}
+
 static int buf_cmp(const char *a_begin, const char *a_end,
 		   const char *b_begin, const char *b_end)
 {
-- 
2.19.1.windows.1

[PATCH 3/3] [Outreachy] stash: use set_fallback_ident() function

[Slavica Djukic]

Call set_fallback_ident() in cmd_stash() and update test
from the first commit to expect success.

Executing stash without user.name and user.email configured
can be useful when bots or similar users use stash, without anyone
specifing valid ident. Use case would be automated testing.
There are also users who  find this convinient.
For example, in this thread:
https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#ma4fb50903a54cbcdecd4ef05856bf8094bc3c323
user points out that he would find it useful if stash had --author option.

Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
---
 builtin/stash.c  | 1 +
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/builtin/stash.c b/builtin/stash.c
index 965e938ebd..add30aae64 100644
--- a/builtin/stash.c
+++ b/builtin/stash.c
@@ -1523,6 +1523,7 @@ int cmd_stash(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 	trace_repo_setup(prefix);
 	setup_work_tree();
 
+	set_fallback_ident("git stash", "stash@git.commands");
 	git_config(git_default_config, NULL);
 
 	argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, git_stash_usage,
diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index aaff36978e..06a2ffb398 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1156,7 +1156,7 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
 	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
 '
 
-test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
+test_expect_success 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
 	git reset &&
 	>1 &&
 	git add 1 &&
-- 
2.19.1.windows.1

Re: [PATCH 1/3][Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Christian Couder]

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:31 PM Slavica Djukic
<slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Add test to assert that stash fails if user.name and user.email

Nit: I am not sure that "assert" is the right word here.
test_expect_failure() is more for documenting an existing bug than for
really asserting a behavior (that users could rely upon). So I would
replace "assert" with "document" or maybe "document the bug".

> are not configured.
> In the final commit, test will be updated to expect success.

Other nit: maybe use "In a later commit" instead of "In the final
commit" as you, or someone else, may add another commit in this patch
series after the current final one.

> Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>

Thanks!

Re: [PATCH 2/3] [Outreachy] ident: introduce set_fallback_ident() function

[Junio C Hamano]

Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:

> Usually, when creating a commit, ident is needed to record the author
> and commiter.
> But, when there is commit not intended to published, e.g. when stashing
> changes,  valid ident is not necessary.
> To allow creating commits in such scenario, let's introduce helper
> function "set_fallback_ident(), which will pre-load the ident.
>
> In following commit, set_fallback_ident() function will be called in stash.
>
> Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
> ---

This is quite the other way around from what I expected to see.

I would have expected that a patch would introduce a new flag to
tell git_author/committer_info() functions that it is OK not to have
name or email given, and pass that flag down the callchain.

Anybody who knows that git_author/committer_info() will eventually
get called can instead tell these helpers not to fail (and yield a
substitute non-answer) beforehand with this function, instead of
passing a flag down to affect _only_ one callflow without affecting
others, using this new function.

I am not yet saying that being opposite from my intuition is
necessarily wrong, but the approach is like setting a global
variable that affects everybody and it will probably make it
harder to later libify the functions involved.  It certainly
makes this patch (and the next step) much simpler than passing
a flag IDENT_NO_NAME_OK|IDENT_NO_MAIL_OK thru the codepath.

> +void set_fallback_ident(const char *name, const char *email)
> +{
> +	if (!git_default_name.len) {
> +		strbuf_addstr(&git_default_name, name);
> +		committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_NAME_GIVEN;
> +		author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_NAME_GIVEN;
> +		ident_config_given |= IDENT_NAME_GIVEN;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!git_default_email.len) {
> +		strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email);
> +		committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN;
> +		author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN;
> +		ident_config_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN;
> +	}
> +}

One terrible thing about this approach is that the caller cannot
tell if it used fallback name or a real name, because it lies in
these "explicitly_given" fields.  The immediate caller (i.e. the one
that creates commit objects used to represent a stash entry) may not
care, but a helper function pretending to be reusable incredient to
solve a more general issue, this is far less than ideal.

So in short, I do agree that the series tackles an issue worth
addressing, but I am not impressed with the approach at all.

Rather than adding this fallback trap, can't we do it more like
this?

    - At the beginning of "git stash", after parsing the command
      line, we know what subcommand of "git stash" we are going to
      run.

    - If it is a subcommand that could need the ident (i.e. the ones
      that create a stash entry), we check the ident (e.g. make a
      call to git_author/committer_info() ourselves) but without
      STRICT bit, so that we can probe without dying if we need to
      supply a fallback identy.

      - And if we do need it, then setenv() the necessary
        environment variables and arrange the next call by anybody
        to git_author/committer_info() will get the fallback values
        from there.

Re: [PATCH 2/3] [Outreachy] ident: introduce set_fallback_ident() function

[Junio C Hamano]

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

> Rather than adding this fallback trap, can't we do it more like
> this?
>
>     - At the beginning of "git stash", after parsing the command
>       line, we know what subcommand of "git stash" we are going to
>       run.
>
>     - If it is a subcommand that could need the ident (i.e. the ones
>       that create a stash entry), we check the ident (e.g. make a
>       call to git_author/committer_info() ourselves) but without
>       STRICT bit, so that we can probe without dying if we need to
>       supply a fallback identy.
>
>       - And if we do need it, then setenv() the necessary
>         environment variables and arrange the next call by anybody
>         to git_author/committer_info() will get the fallback values
>         from there.

As we currently have no idea when builtin/stash.c becomes ready for
'next', how about doing something like this instead, in order to
help end-users without waiting in the meantime?  The fix can be
picked up and ported when the C rewrite is updated, of course.

 git-stash.sh | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh
index 94793c1a91..789ce2f41d 100755
--- a/git-stash.sh
+++ b/git-stash.sh
@@ -55,6 +55,20 @@ untracked_files () {
 	git ls-files -o $z $excl_opt -- "$@"
 }
 
+prepare_fallback_ident () {
+	if ! git -c user.useconfigonly=yes var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >/dev/null 2>&1
+	then
+		GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="git stash"
+		GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=git@stash
+		GIT_COMMITTER_NAME="git stash"
+		GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL=git@stash
+		export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME
+		export GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
+		export GIT_COMMITTER_NAME
+		export GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL
+	fi
+}
+
 clear_stash () {
 	if test $# != 0
 	then
@@ -67,6 +81,9 @@ clear_stash () {
 }
 
 create_stash () {
+
+	prepare_fallback_ident
+
 	stash_msg=
 	untracked=
 	while test $# != 0

[PATCH 2+3/3] stash: tolerate missing user identity

[Junio C Hamano]

The "git stash" command insists on having a usable user identity to
the same degree as the "git commit-tree" and "git commit" commands
do, because it uses the same codepath that creates commit objects
as these commands.

It is not strictly necesary to do so.  Check if we will barf before
creating commit objects and then supply fake identity to please the
machinery that creates commits.

This is not that much of usability improvement, as the users who run
"git stash" would eventually want to record their changes that are
temporarily stored in the stashes in a more permanent history by
committing, and they must do "git config user.{name,email}" at that
point anyway, so arguably this change is only delaying a step that
is necessary to work in the repository.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---

 * This time with a proposed commit log message and a flip to the
   test; this would be able to replce 2/3 and 3/3 without waiting
   for ps/stash-in-c to stabilize and become ready to be based on
   further work like this one.

   We need to extend the test so that when a reasonable identity is
   present, the stashes are created under that identity and not with
   the fallback one, which I do not think is tested with the previous
   step, so there still is a bit of room to improve [PATCH 1/3]

 git-stash.sh     | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 t/t3903-stash.sh |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh
index 94793c1a91..789ce2f41d 100755
--- a/git-stash.sh
+++ b/git-stash.sh
@@ -55,6 +55,20 @@ untracked_files () {
 	git ls-files -o $z $excl_opt -- "$@"
 }
 
+prepare_fallback_ident () {
+	if ! git -c user.useconfigonly=yes var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >/dev/null 2>&1
+	then
+		GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="git stash"
+		GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=git@stash
+		GIT_COMMITTER_NAME="git stash"
+		GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL=git@stash
+		export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME
+		export GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
+		export GIT_COMMITTER_NAME
+		export GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL
+	fi
+}
+
 clear_stash () {
 	if test $# != 0
 	then
@@ -67,6 +81,9 @@ clear_stash () {
 }
 
 create_stash () {
+
+	prepare_fallback_ident
+
 	stash_msg=
 	untracked=
 	while test $# != 0
diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index a9a573efa0..3dcf2f14d1 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1096,7 +1096,7 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
 	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
 '
 
-test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
+test_expect_success 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
 	git reset &&
 	>1 &&
 	git add 1 &&
-- 
2.19.1-801-gd582ea202b

Re: [PATCH 2/3] [Outreachy] ident: introduce set_fallback_ident() function

[Junio C Hamano]

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

> As we currently have no idea when builtin/stash.c becomes ready for
> 'next', how about doing something like this instead, in order to
> help end-users without waiting in the meantime?  The fix can be
> picked up and ported when the C rewrite is updated, of course.

I think a better approach to fix the current C version, assuming
that a reroll won't change the structure of the code too much and
keeps using commit_tree() to synthesize the stash entries, would be
to teach commit_tree() -> commit_tree_extended() codepath to take
commiter identity just like it takes author identity.  Then inside
builtin/stash.c, we can choose what committer and author identity to
pass without having commit_tree_extended() ask for identity with the
STRICT option.  Right now, commit_tree() does not have a good way,
other than somehow lying to git_author/committer_info(), to record a
commit created under an arbitrary identity, which would be fixed
with such an approach and will help callers with similar needs in
the future.

[PATCH v2 0/2] [Outreachy] make stash work if user.name and user.email are not configured

[Slavica Djukic]

Changes since v1:
	
	*extend test to check whether git stash executes under valid ident
	(and not under fallback one) when there is such present
	*add prepare_fallback_ident() function to git-stash.sh to 
	provide fallback identity

Slavica Djukic (2):
  [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and
    user.email
  [Outreachy] stash: tolerate missing user identity

 git-stash.sh     | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+)

-- 
2.19.1.1052.gd166e6afe

[PATCH v2 1/2] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Slavica Djukic]

Add test to document that stash fails if user.name and user.email
are not configured.
In the later commit, test will be updated to expect success.

Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
---
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index cd216655b..bab8bec67 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1096,4 +1096,27 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
 	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
 '
 
+test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
+	git reset &&
+	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >expected &&
+	>1 &&
+	git add 1 &&
+	git stash &&
+	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >actual &&
+	test_cmp expected actual &&
+	>2 &&
+	git add 2 &&
+	test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
+	test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
+	(
+		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
+		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
+		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
+		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
+		test_unconfig user.email &&
+		test_unconfig user.name &&
+		git stash
+	)
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
2.19.1.1052.gd166e6afe

[PATCH v2 2/2] [Outreachy] stash: tolerate missing user identity

[Slavica Djukic]

The "git stash" command insists on having a usable user identity to
the same degree as the "git commit-tree" and "git commit" commands
do, because it uses the same codepath that creates commit objects
as these commands.

It is not strictly necesary to do so.  Check if we will barf before
creating commit objects and then supply fake identity to please the
machinery that creates commits.

This is not that much of usability improvement, as the users who run
"git stash" would eventually want to record their changes that are
temporarily stored in the stashes in a more permanent history by
committing, and they must do "git config user.{name,email}" at that
point anyway, so arguably this change is only delaying a step that
is necessary to work in the repository.

Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
---
 git-stash.sh     | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 t/t3903-stash.sh |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh
index 94793c1a9..789ce2f41 100755
--- a/git-stash.sh
+++ b/git-stash.sh
@@ -55,6 +55,20 @@ untracked_files () {
 	git ls-files -o $z $excl_opt -- "$@"
 }
 
+prepare_fallback_ident () {
+	if ! git -c user.useconfigonly=yes var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >/dev/null 2>&1
+	then
+		GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="git stash"
+		GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=git@stash
+		GIT_COMMITTER_NAME="git stash"
+		GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL=git@stash
+		export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME
+		export GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
+		export GIT_COMMITTER_NAME
+		export GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL
+	fi
+}
+
 clear_stash () {
 	if test $# != 0
 	then
@@ -67,6 +81,9 @@ clear_stash () {
 }
 
 create_stash () {
+
+	prepare_fallback_ident
+
 	stash_msg=
 	untracked=
 	while test $# != 0
diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index bab8bec67..0b0814421 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1096,7 +1096,7 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
 	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
 '
 
-test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
+test_expect_success 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
 	git reset &&
 	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >expected &&
 	>1 &&
-- 
2.19.1.1052.gd166e6afe

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Slavica,

this looks very good to me. Just one grammar thing:

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Slavica Djukic wrote:

> Add test to document that stash fails if user.name and user.email
> are not configured.
> In the later commit, test will be updated to expect success.

In a later commit [...]

Otherwise, I would be totally fine with this version being merged.

Ciao,
Johannes

> 
> Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
> ---
>  t/t3903-stash.sh | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> index cd216655b..bab8bec67 100755
> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> @@ -1096,4 +1096,27 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
>  	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
> +	git reset &&
> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >expected &&
> +	>1 &&
> +	git add 1 &&
> +	git stash &&
> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >actual &&
> +	test_cmp expected actual &&
> +	>2 &&
> +	git add 2 &&
> +	test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
> +	test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
> +	(
> +		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
> +		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
> +		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
> +		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
> +		test_unconfig user.email &&
> +		test_unconfig user.name &&
> +		git stash
> +	)
> +'
> +
>  test_done
> -- 
> 2.19.1.1052.gd166e6afe
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [Outreachy] stash: tolerate missing user identity

[Junio C Hamano]

Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:

>  git-stash.sh     | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  t/t3903-stash.sh |  2 +-
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh
> index 94793c1a9..789ce2f41 100755
> --- a/git-stash.sh
> +++ b/git-stash.sh
> @@ -55,6 +55,20 @@ untracked_files () {
>  	git ls-files -o $z $excl_opt -- "$@"
>  }
>  
> +prepare_fallback_ident () {
> +	if ! git -c user.useconfigonly=yes var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >/dev/null 2>&1
> +	then
> +		GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="git stash"
> +		GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=git@stash
> +		GIT_COMMITTER_NAME="git stash"
> +		GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL=git@stash
> +		export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME
> +		export GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
> +		export GIT_COMMITTER_NAME
> +		export GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL
> +	fi
> +}
> +
>  clear_stash () {
>  	if test $# != 0
>  	then
> @@ -67,6 +81,9 @@ clear_stash () {
>  }
>  
>  create_stash () {
> +
> +	prepare_fallback_ident
> +
>  	stash_msg=
>  	untracked=
>  	while test $# != 0

That looks like a sensible implementation to me.

> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> index bab8bec67..0b0814421 100755
> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> @@ -1096,7 +1096,7 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
>  	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
>  '
>  
> -test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
> +test_expect_success 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '

This line claims to the readers of patch that the known breakage
this known test piece demonstrated has been corrected, but they need
to refresh their memory by going back to the previous patch to see
if this "failure-to-success" flipping is done to the right test
piece, and what exactly the test piece tested to see the existing
breakage, because all the interesting part of the test are chomped
outside the post-context of this hunk.

Unless the fix is fairly complex, adding ought-to-succeed tests that
expect success that break when the code change gets omitted from the
patch in the same patch as the fix itself (i.e. squash patch 1/2 and
patch 2/2 into a single patch) would be more helpful for the readers
(it also helps cherry-picking the fix later to earlier maintenance
tracks if it becomes necessary).

>  	git reset &&
>  	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >expected &&
>  	>1 &&

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Junio C Hamano]

Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:

> +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
> +	git reset &&
> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >expected &&

All the other existing test pieces in this file calls the expected
result "expect"; is there a reason why this patch needs to be
different (e.g. 'expect' file left by the earlier step needs to be
kept unmodified for later use, or something like that)?  If not,
please avoid making a difference in irrelevant details, as that
would waste time of readers by forcing them to guess if there is
such a reason that readers cannot immediately see.

Anyway, we grab the committer ident we use by default during the
test with this command.  OK.

> +	>1 &&
> +	git add 1 &&
> +	git stash &&

And we make sure we can create stash.

> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >actual &&
> +	test_cmp expected actual &&

I am not sure what you are testing with this step.  There is nothing
that changed environment variables or configuration since we ran
"git var" above.  Why does this test suspect that somebody in the
future may break the expectation that after running 'git add' and/or
'git stash', our committer identity may have been changed, and how
would such a breakage happen?

> +	>2 &&
> +	git add 2 &&
> +	test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
> +	test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&

Now we start using use-config-only, so unsetting environment
variables will cause trouble when Git insists on having an
explicitly configured identities.  Makes sense.

> +	(
> +		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
> +		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
> +		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
> +		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
> +		test_unconfig user.email &&
> +		test_unconfig user.name &&

And then we try the same test, but without environment or config.
Since we are unsetting the environment, in order to be nice for
future test writers, we do this in a subshell, so that we do not
have to restore the original values of environment variables.

Don't we need to be nice the same way for configuration variables,
though?  We _know_ that nobody sets user.{email,name} config up to
this point in the test sequence, so that is why we do not do a "save
before test and then restore to the original" dance on them.  Even
though we are relying on the fact that these two variables are left
unset in the configuration file, we unconfig them here anyway, and I
do think it is a good idea for documentation purposes (i.e. we are
not documenting what we assume the config before running this test
would be; we are documenting what state we want these two variables
are in when running this "git stash"---that is, they are both unset).

So these later part of this test piece makes sense.  I still do not
know what you wanted to check in the earlier part of the test,
though.

> +		git stash
> +	)
> +'
> +
>  test_done

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Junio C Hamano]

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

> Now we start using use-config-only, so unsetting environment
> variables will cause trouble when Git insists on having an
> explicitly configured identities.  Makes sense.
>
>> +	(
>> +		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
>> +		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
>> +		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
>> +		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
>> +		test_unconfig user.email &&
>> +		test_unconfig user.name &&
>
> And then we try the same test, but without environment or config.

I suspect that it makes sense to replace the "git stash" we see
below with something like this:

	test_must_fail git commit -m should fail &&
	echo "git stash <git@stash>" >expect &&
	echo >2 &&
	git stash &&
	git show -s --format="%(authorname) <%(authoremail)>" refs/stash >actual &&
	test_cmp expect actual

That is

 - we make sure "commit" would not go through, to make sure our
   preparation to unset environment variables was sufficient;

 - we make sure "stash" does succeed (which is the primary thing you
   are interested in);

 - we make sure the resulting "stash" is not created under our
   default identity but under our fallback one.

>> +		git stash
>> +	)
>> +'
>> +
>>  test_done

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Junio C Hamano]

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

> Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
>> +	git reset &&
>> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >expected &&
> ...
> Anyway, we grab the committer ident we use by default during the
> test with this command.  OK.
>
>> +	>1 &&
>> +	git add 1 &&
>> +	git stash &&
>
> And we make sure we can create stash.
>
>> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >actual &&
>> +	test_cmp expected actual &&
>
> I am not sure what you are testing with this step.  There is nothing
> that changed environment variables or configuration since we ran
> "git var" above.  Why does this test suspect that somebody in the
> future may break the expectation that after running 'git add' and/or
> 'git stash', our committer identity may have been changed, and how
> would such a breakage happen?

Just a note.

"git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT" has timestamp in it, so a naïve reader
might wonder what would happen if "git add 1" and "git stash" took
more than one second.  But it won't be a problem in this case as the
committer date comes from the environment GIT_COMMITTER_DATE, which
is set to a fixed known value and is incremented only by calling
test_commit helper function, which does not happen between the two
"git var" calls.

In any case, I am not sure I understand the point of comparing two
output from "git var" invocations we see ablve in this test.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Slavica Djukic]

Hi Junio,

On 16-Nov-18 6:55 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +test_expect_failure 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
>> +	git reset &&
>> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >expected &&
> All the other existing test pieces in this file calls the expected
> result "expect"; is there a reason why this patch needs to be
> different (e.g. 'expect' file left by the earlier step needs to be
> kept unmodified for later use, or something like that)?  If not,
> please avoid making a difference in irrelevant details, as that
> would waste time of readers by forcing them to guess if there is
> such a reason that readers cannot immediately see.

There is no specific reason for file to be "expected", I'll update that.

>
> Anyway, we grab the committer ident we use by default during the
> test with this command.  OK.
>
>> +	>1 &&
>> +	git add 1 &&
>> +	git stash &&
> And we make sure we can create stash.
>
>> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >actual &&
>> +	test_cmp expected actual &&
> I am not sure what you are testing with this step.  There is nothing
> that changed environment variables or configuration since we ran
> "git var" above.  Why does this test suspect that somebody in the
> future may break the expectation that after running 'git add' and/or
> 'git stash', our committer identity may have been changed, and how
> would such a breakage happen?
In previous re-roll, you suggested that test should be improved so that 
when
reasonable identity is present, git stash executes under that identity, 
and not
under the fallback one. Here I'm just making sure that after calling git 
stash,
we still have same reasonable identity present.
>
>> +	>2 &&
>> +	git add 2 &&
>> +	test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
>> +	test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
> Now we start using use-config-only, so unsetting environment
> variables will cause trouble when Git insists on having an
> explicitly configured identities.  Makes sense.
>
>> +	(
>> +		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
>> +		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
>> +		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
>> +		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
>> +		test_unconfig user.email &&
>> +		test_unconfig user.name &&
> And then we try the same test, but without environment or config.
> Since we are unsetting the environment, in order to be nice for
> future test writers, we do this in a subshell, so that we do not
> have to restore the original values of environment variables.
>
> Don't we need to be nice the same way for configuration variables,
> though?  We _know_ that nobody sets user.{email,name} config up to
> this point in the test sequence, so that is why we do not do a "save
> before test and then restore to the original" dance on them.  Even
> though we are relying on the fact that these two variables are left
> unset in the configuration file, we unconfig them here anyway, and I
> do think it is a good idea for documentation purposes (i.e. we are
> not documenting what we assume the config before running this test
> would be; we are documenting what state we want these two variables
> are in when running this "git stash"---that is, they are both unset).
>
> So these later part of this test piece makes sense.  I still do not
> know what you wanted to check in the earlier part of the test,
> though.
>
>> +		git stash
>> +	)
>> +'
>> +
>>   test_done
>
Thank you,
Slavica

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Junio C Hamano]

Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:

>>> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >actual &&
>>> +	test_cmp expected actual &&
>> I am not sure what you are testing with this step.  There is nothing
>> that changed environment variables or configuration since we ran
>> "git var" above.  Why does this test suspect that somebody in the
>> future may break the expectation that after running 'git add' and/or
>> 'git stash', our committer identity may have been changed, and how
>> would such a breakage happen?
> In previous re-roll, you suggested that test should be improved so
> that when
> reasonable identity is present, git stash executes under that
> identity, and not
> under the fallback one. 

Yes, but for that you'd need to be checking the resulting commit
object that represents the stash entry.  It should be created under
the substitute identity.

> Here I'm just making sure that after calling
> git stash,
> we still have same reasonable identity present.

I do not think such a test would detect it, even when "git stash"
incorrectly used the fallback identity to create the stash entry.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Slavica Djukic]

Hi Junio,

On 16-Nov-18 11:12 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> +	git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >actual &&
>>>> +	test_cmp expected actual &&
>>> I am not sure what you are testing with this step.  There is nothing
>>> that changed environment variables or configuration since we ran
>>> "git var" above.  Why does this test suspect that somebody in the
>>> future may break the expectation that after running 'git add' and/or
>>> 'git stash', our committer identity may have been changed, and how
>>> would such a breakage happen?
>> In previous re-roll, you suggested that test should be improved so
>> that when
>> reasonable identity is present, git stash executes under that
>> identity, and not
>> under the fallback one.
> Yes, but for that you'd need to be checking the resulting commit
> object that represents the stash entry.  It should be created under
> the substitute identity.
Would it be correct to check it like this:

         git reset &&
         >1 &&
         git add 1 &&
         echo "$GIT_AUTHOR_NAME <$GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL>" >expect &&
         git stash &&
         git show -s --format="%an <%ae>" refs/stash >actual &&
         test_cmp expect actual

It is similar to your suggestion when there is no
ident present.
>> Here I'm just making sure that after calling
>> git stash,
>> we still have same reasonable identity present.
> I do not think such a test would detect it, even when "git stash"
> incorrectly used the fallback identity to create the stash entry.
>
>
Thank you,
Slavica

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user.name and user.email

[Junio C Hamano]

Slavica Djukic <slavicadj.ip2018@gmail.com> writes:

>> Yes, but for that you'd need to be checking the resulting commit
>> object that represents the stash entry.  It should be created under
>> the substitute identity.
> Would it be correct to check it like this:
>
>         git reset &&
>         >1 &&
>         git add 1 &&
>         echo "$GIT_AUTHOR_NAME <$GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL>" >expect &&
>         git stash &&
>         git show -s --format="%an <%ae>" refs/stash >actual &&
>         test_cmp expect actual

So, you create a stash, and grab %an and %ae out of the resulting
commit object and store them in actual, and then compare.  Makes
sense.

[PATCH 0/1 v3] make stash work if user.name and user.email are not configured

[Slavica Djukic]

Changes since v2:
	* squash patch 1/2 and patch 2/2 into a single patch
	* modify first part of test when there is valid ident
	  present: create a stash, grab %an and %ae out of the 
	  resulting commit object and compare to original ident
	  
Slavica Djukic (1):
  stash: tolerate missing user identity

 git-stash.sh     | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)

-- 
2.19.1.1052.gd166e6afe

[PATCH 1/1 v3] stash: tolerate missing user identity

[Slavica Djukic]

The "git stash" command insists on having a usable user identity to
the same degree as the "git commit-tree" and "git commit" commands
do, because it uses the same codepath that creates commit objects
as these commands.

It is not strictly necesary to do so. Check if we will barf before
creating commit objects and then supply fake identity to please the
machinery that creates commits.
Add test to document that stash executes correctly both with and
without valid ident.

This is not that much of usability improvement, as the users who run
"git stash" would eventually want to record their changes that are
temporarily stored in the stashes in a more permanent history by
committing, and they must do "git config user.{name,email}" at that
point anyway, so arguably this change is only delaying a step that
is necessary to work in the repository.

Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Slavica Djukic <slawica92@hotmail.com>
---
 git-stash.sh     | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)

diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh
index 94793c1a9..789ce2f41 100755
--- a/git-stash.sh
+++ b/git-stash.sh
@@ -55,6 +55,20 @@ untracked_files () {
 	git ls-files -o $z $excl_opt -- "$@"
 }
 
+prepare_fallback_ident () {
+	if ! git -c user.useconfigonly=yes var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >/dev/null 2>&1
+	then
+		GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="git stash"
+		GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=git@stash
+		GIT_COMMITTER_NAME="git stash"
+		GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL=git@stash
+		export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME
+		export GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
+		export GIT_COMMITTER_NAME
+		export GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL
+	fi
+}
+
 clear_stash () {
 	if test $# != 0
 	then
@@ -67,6 +81,9 @@ clear_stash () {
 }
 
 create_stash () {
+
+	prepare_fallback_ident
+
 	stash_msg=
 	untracked=
 	while test $# != 0
diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index cd216655b..5f8272b6f 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1096,4 +1096,32 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -- <subdir> works with binary files' '
 	test_path_is_file subdir/untracked
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'stash works when user.name and user.email are not set' '
+	git reset &&
+	>1 &&
+	git add 1 &&
+	echo "$GIT_AUTHOR_NAME <$GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL>" >expect &&
+	git stash &&
+	git show -s --format="%an <%ae>" refs/stash >actual &&
+	test_cmp expect actual &&
+	>2 &&
+	git add 2 &&
+	test_config user.useconfigonly true &&
+	test_config stash.usebuiltin true &&
+	(
+		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_NAME &&
+		sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL &&
+		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_NAME &&
+		sane_unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
+		test_unconfig user.email &&
+		test_unconfig user.name &&
+		test_must_fail git commit -m "should fail" &&
+		echo "git stash <git@stash>" >expect &&
+		>2 &&
+		git stash &&
+		git show -s --format="%an <%ae>" refs/stash >actual &&
+		test_cmp expect actual
+	)
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
2.19.1.1052.gd166e6afe