2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
#!/bin/sh
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
# Copyright (c) 2007 Michael Spang
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_description='git clean basic tests'
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. ./test-lib.sh
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-11-02 00:32:04 +00:00
|
|
|
git config clean.requireForce no
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'setup' '
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p src &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch src/part1.c Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
echo build >.gitignore &&
|
|
|
|
|
echo \*.o >>.gitignore &&
|
2007-07-03 05:52:14 +00:00
|
|
|
git add . &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git commit -m setup &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
touch src/part2.c README &&
|
2007-07-03 05:52:14 +00:00
|
|
|
git add .
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-08-20 13:47:01 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean with skip-worktree .gitignore' '
|
|
|
|
|
git update-index --skip-worktree .gitignore &&
|
|
|
|
|
rm .gitignore &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so &&
|
|
|
|
|
git update-index --no-skip-worktree .gitignore &&
|
|
|
|
|
git checkout .gitignore
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean' '
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean src/' '
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean src/ &&
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean src/ src/' '
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean src/ src/ &&
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean with prefix' '
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-13 23:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs src/test &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so src/test/1.c &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
(cd src/ && git clean) &&
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
2008-04-13 23:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f src/test/1.c &&
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
2008-03-08 05:56:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2011-02-22 23:42:21 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success C_LOCALE_OUTPUT 'git clean with relative prefix' '
|
2008-03-08 05:56:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
|
|
|
|
would_clean=$(
|
|
|
|
|
cd docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -n ../src |
|
clean: disambiguate the definition of -d
The -d flag pre-dated git-clean's ability to have paths specified. As
such, the default for git-clean was to only remove untracked files in
the current directory, and -d existed to allow it to recurse into
subdirectories.
The interaction of paths and the -d option appears to not have been
carefully considered, as evidenced by numerous bugs and a dearth of
tests covering such pairings in the testsuite. The definition turns out
to be important, so let's look at some of the various ways one could
interpret the -d option:
A) Without -d, only look in subdirectories which contain tracked
files under them; with -d, also look in subdirectories which
are untracked for files to clean.
B) Without specified paths from the user for us to delete, we need to
have some kind of default, so...without -d, only look in
subdirectories which contain tracked files under them; with -d,
also look in subdirectories which are untracked for files to clean.
The important distinction here is that choice B says that the presence
or absence of '-d' is irrelevant if paths are specified. The logic
behind option B is that if a user explicitly asked us to clean a
specified pathspec, then we should clean anything that matches that
pathspec. Some examples may clarify. Should
git clean -f untracked_dir/file
remove untracked_dir/file or not? It seems crazy not to, but a strict
reading of option A says it shouldn't be removed. How about
git clean -f untracked_dir/file1 tracked_dir/file2
or
git clean -f untracked_dir_1/file1 untracked_dir_2/file2
? Should it remove either or both of these files? Should it require
multiple runs to remove both the files listed? (If this sounds like a
crazy question to even ask, see the commit message of "t7300: Add some
testcases showing failure to clean specified pathspecs" added earlier in
this patch series.) What if -ffd were used instead of -f -- should that
allow these to be removed? Should it take multiple invocations with
-ffd? What if a glob (such as '*tracked*') were used instead of
spelling out the directory names? What if the filenames involved globs,
such as
git clean -f '*.o'
or
git clean -f '*/*.o'
?
The current documentation actually suggests a definition that is
slightly different than choice A, and the implementation prior to this
series provided something radically different than either choices A or
B. (The implementation, though, was clearly just buggy). There may be
other choices as well. However, for almost any given choice of
definition for -d that I can think of, some of the examples above will
appear buggy to the user. The only case that doesn't have negative
surprises is choice B: treat a user-specified path as a request to clean
all untracked files which match that path specification, including
recursing into any untracked directories.
Change the documentation and basic implementation to use this
definition.
There were two regression tests that indirectly depended on the current
implementation, but neither was about subdirectory handling. These two
tests were introduced in commit 5b7570cfb41c ("git-clean: add tests for
relative path", 2008-03-07) which was solely created to add coverage for
the changes in commit fb328947c8e ("git-clean: correct printing relative
path", 2008-03-07). Both tests specified a directory that happened to
have an untracked subdirectory, but both were only checking that the
resulting printout of a file that was removed was shown with a relative
path. Update these tests appropriately.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:35:01 +00:00
|
|
|
grep part3 |
|
2008-03-08 05:56:56 +00:00
|
|
|
sed -n -e "s|^Would remove ||p"
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
2015-03-20 10:09:00 +00:00
|
|
|
verbose test "$would_clean" = ../src/part3.c
|
2008-03-08 05:56:56 +00:00
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-02-22 23:42:21 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success C_LOCALE_OUTPUT 'git clean with absolute path' '
|
2008-03-08 05:56:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
|
|
|
|
would_clean=$(
|
|
|
|
|
cd docs &&
|
2008-05-04 05:37:59 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -n "$(pwd)/../src" |
|
clean: disambiguate the definition of -d
The -d flag pre-dated git-clean's ability to have paths specified. As
such, the default for git-clean was to only remove untracked files in
the current directory, and -d existed to allow it to recurse into
subdirectories.
The interaction of paths and the -d option appears to not have been
carefully considered, as evidenced by numerous bugs and a dearth of
tests covering such pairings in the testsuite. The definition turns out
to be important, so let's look at some of the various ways one could
interpret the -d option:
A) Without -d, only look in subdirectories which contain tracked
files under them; with -d, also look in subdirectories which
are untracked for files to clean.
B) Without specified paths from the user for us to delete, we need to
have some kind of default, so...without -d, only look in
subdirectories which contain tracked files under them; with -d,
also look in subdirectories which are untracked for files to clean.
The important distinction here is that choice B says that the presence
or absence of '-d' is irrelevant if paths are specified. The logic
behind option B is that if a user explicitly asked us to clean a
specified pathspec, then we should clean anything that matches that
pathspec. Some examples may clarify. Should
git clean -f untracked_dir/file
remove untracked_dir/file or not? It seems crazy not to, but a strict
reading of option A says it shouldn't be removed. How about
git clean -f untracked_dir/file1 tracked_dir/file2
or
git clean -f untracked_dir_1/file1 untracked_dir_2/file2
? Should it remove either or both of these files? Should it require
multiple runs to remove both the files listed? (If this sounds like a
crazy question to even ask, see the commit message of "t7300: Add some
testcases showing failure to clean specified pathspecs" added earlier in
this patch series.) What if -ffd were used instead of -f -- should that
allow these to be removed? Should it take multiple invocations with
-ffd? What if a glob (such as '*tracked*') were used instead of
spelling out the directory names? What if the filenames involved globs,
such as
git clean -f '*.o'
or
git clean -f '*/*.o'
?
The current documentation actually suggests a definition that is
slightly different than choice A, and the implementation prior to this
series provided something radically different than either choices A or
B. (The implementation, though, was clearly just buggy). There may be
other choices as well. However, for almost any given choice of
definition for -d that I can think of, some of the examples above will
appear buggy to the user. The only case that doesn't have negative
surprises is choice B: treat a user-specified path as a request to clean
all untracked files which match that path specification, including
recursing into any untracked directories.
Change the documentation and basic implementation to use this
definition.
There were two regression tests that indirectly depended on the current
implementation, but neither was about subdirectory handling. These two
tests were introduced in commit 5b7570cfb41c ("git-clean: add tests for
relative path", 2008-03-07) which was solely created to add coverage for
the changes in commit fb328947c8e ("git-clean: correct printing relative
path", 2008-03-07). Both tests specified a directory that happened to
have an untracked subdirectory, but both were only checking that the
resulting printout of a file that was removed was shown with a relative
path. Update these tests appropriately.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:35:01 +00:00
|
|
|
grep part3 |
|
2008-03-08 05:56:56 +00:00
|
|
|
sed -n -e "s|^Would remove ||p"
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
2015-03-20 10:09:00 +00:00
|
|
|
verbose test "$would_clean" = ../src/part3.c
|
2008-03-08 05:56:56 +00:00
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean with out of work tree relative path' '
|
2008-03-08 05:56:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_must_fail git clean -n ../..
|
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean with out of work tree absolute path' '
|
2008-03-08 05:56:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
|
|
|
|
dd=$(cd .. && pwd) &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_must_fail git clean -n $dd
|
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d with prefix and path' '
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs src/feature &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c src/feature/file.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
(cd src/ && git clean -d feature/) &&
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/feature/file.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-25 08:03:39 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'git clean symbolic link' '
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2010-10-31 07:30:58 +00:00
|
|
|
ln -s docs/manual.txt src/part4.c &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean &&
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part4.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean with wildcard' '
|
2007-12-06 03:28:06 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.clean b.clean other.c &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean "*.clean" &&
|
2007-12-06 03:28:06 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f a.clean &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f b.clean &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f other.c
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -n' '
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -n &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d' '
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -d &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -d docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d src/ examples/' '
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs examples &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so examples/1.c &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -d src/ examples/ &&
|
2007-11-05 04:28:12 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f examples/1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -x' '
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -x &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d -x' '
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -d -x &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -d docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -d build
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-04-15 19:10:05 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d -x with ignored tracked directory' '
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -d -x -e src &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -d docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -d build
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -X' '
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -X &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d -X' '
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -d -X &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -d build
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-04-15 19:10:05 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d -X with ignored tracked directory' '
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -d -X -e src &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -d build
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-11-02 00:32:04 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'clean.requireForce defaults to true' '
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git config --unset clean.requireForce &&
|
2008-07-12 15:47:52 +00:00
|
|
|
test_must_fail git clean
|
2007-11-02 00:32:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'clean.requireForce' '
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-03 05:52:14 +00:00
|
|
|
git config clean.requireForce true &&
|
2008-07-12 15:47:52 +00:00
|
|
|
test_must_fail git clean
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'clean.requireForce and -n' '
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p build docs &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so &&
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -n &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f Makefile &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'clean.requireForce and -f' '
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-03 08:59:33 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -f &&
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f README &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part1.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f src/part2.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f a.out &&
|
|
|
|
|
test ! -f src/part3.c &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f docs/manual.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f obj.o &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f build/lib.so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-02-22 23:42:21 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success C_LOCALE_OUTPUT 'core.excludesfile' '
|
2007-11-14 09:54:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
echo excludes >excludes &&
|
|
|
|
|
echo included >included &&
|
|
|
|
|
git config core.excludesfile excludes &&
|
|
|
|
|
output=$(git clean -n excludes included 2>&1) &&
|
|
|
|
|
expr "$output" : ".*included" >/dev/null &&
|
|
|
|
|
! expr "$output" : ".*excludes" >/dev/null
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-06 22:09:09 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success SANITY 'removal failure' '
|
2008-02-21 01:44:46 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch foo/bar &&
|
2014-07-02 18:44:30 +00:00
|
|
|
test_when_finished "chmod 755 foo" &&
|
2009-03-11 16:58:32 +00:00
|
|
|
(exec <foo/bar &&
|
|
|
|
|
chmod 0 foo &&
|
2014-07-02 18:44:30 +00:00
|
|
|
test_must_fail git clean -f -d)
|
2008-02-21 01:44:46 +00:00
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'nested git work tree' '
|
2012-03-15 08:04:12 +00:00
|
|
|
rm -fr foo bar baz &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p foo bar baz/boo &&
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init &&
|
2015-08-30 09:18:09 +00:00
|
|
|
test_commit nested hello.world
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
) &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd bar &&
|
|
|
|
|
>goodbye.people
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
2012-03-15 08:04:12 +00:00
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd baz/boo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init &&
|
2015-08-30 09:18:09 +00:00
|
|
|
test_commit deeply.nested deeper.world
|
2012-03-15 08:04:12 +00:00
|
|
|
) &&
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -f -d &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f foo/.git/index &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f foo/hello.world &&
|
2012-03-15 08:04:12 +00:00
|
|
|
test -f baz/boo/.git/index &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -f baz/boo/deeper.world &&
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
! test -d bar
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-06-15 19:39:55 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'should clean things that almost look like git but are not' '
|
2015-06-15 19:39:53 +00:00
|
|
|
rm -fr almost_git almost_bare_git almost_submodule &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p almost_git/.git/objects &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p almost_git/.git/refs &&
|
|
|
|
|
cat >almost_git/.git/HEAD <<-\EOF &&
|
|
|
|
|
garbage
|
|
|
|
|
EOF
|
|
|
|
|
cp -r almost_git/.git/ almost_bare_git &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir almost_submodule/ &&
|
|
|
|
|
cat >almost_submodule/.git <<-\EOF &&
|
|
|
|
|
garbage
|
|
|
|
|
EOF
|
|
|
|
|
test_when_finished "rm -rf almost_*" &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing almost_git &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing almost_bare_git &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing almost_submodule
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'should not clean submodules' '
|
|
|
|
|
rm -fr repo to_clean sub1 sub2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir repo to_clean &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_commit msg hello.world
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
|
|
|
|
git submodule add ./repo/.git sub1 &&
|
|
|
|
|
git commit -m "sub1" &&
|
|
|
|
|
git branch before_sub2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
git submodule add ./repo/.git sub2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
git commit -m "sub2" &&
|
|
|
|
|
git checkout before_sub2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
>to_clean/should_clean.this &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file repo/.git/index &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file repo/hello.world &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file sub1/.git &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file sub1/hello.world &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file sub2/.git &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file sub2/hello.world &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing to_clean
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-03 18:54:32 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success POSIXPERM,SANITY 'should avoid cleaning possible submodules' '
|
2015-06-15 19:39:53 +00:00
|
|
|
rm -fr to_clean possible_sub1 &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir to_clean possible_sub1 &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_when_finished "rm -rf possible_sub*" &&
|
|
|
|
|
echo "gitdir: foo" >possible_sub1/.git &&
|
|
|
|
|
>possible_sub1/hello.world &&
|
|
|
|
|
chmod 0 possible_sub1/.git &&
|
|
|
|
|
>to_clean/should_clean.this &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file possible_sub1/.git &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file possible_sub1/hello.world &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing to_clean
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-06-15 19:39:55 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'nested (empty) git should be kept' '
|
2015-06-15 19:39:53 +00:00
|
|
|
rm -fr empty_repo to_clean &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init empty_repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir to_clean &&
|
|
|
|
|
>to_clean/should_clean.this &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file empty_repo/.git/HEAD &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing to_clean
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'nested bare repositories should be cleaned' '
|
|
|
|
|
rm -fr bare1 bare2 subdir &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init --bare bare1 &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clone --local --bare . bare2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir subdir &&
|
|
|
|
|
cp -r bare2 subdir/bare3 &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing bare1 &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing bare2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing subdir
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-06-15 19:39:55 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_failure 'nested (empty) bare repositories should be cleaned even when in .git' '
|
2015-06-15 19:39:53 +00:00
|
|
|
rm -fr strange_bare &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir strange_bare &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init --bare strange_bare/.git &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing strange_bare
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_failure 'nested (non-empty) bare repositories should be cleaned even when in .git' '
|
|
|
|
|
rm -fr strange_bare &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir strange_bare &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clone --local --bare . strange_bare/.git &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing strange_bare
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
clean: avoid removing untracked files in a nested git repository
Users expect files in a nested git repository to be left alone unless
sufficiently forced (with two -f's). Unfortunately, in certain
circumstances, git would delete both tracked (and possibly dirty) files
and untracked files within a nested repository. To explain how this
happens, let's contrast a couple cases. First, take the following
example setup (which assumes we are already within a git repo):
git init nested
cd nested
>tracked
git add tracked
git commit -m init
>untracked
cd ..
In this setup, everything works as expected; running 'git clean -fd'
will result in fill_directory() returning the following paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
and then correct_untracked_entries() would notice this can be compressed
to
nested/
and then since "nested/" is a directory, we would call
remove_dirs("nested/", ...), which would
check is_nonbare_repository_dir() and then decide to skip it.
However, if someone also creates an ignored file:
>nested/ignored
then running 'git clean -fd' would result in fill_directory() returning
the same paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
but correct_untracked_entries() will notice that we had ignored entries
under nested/ and thus simplify this list to
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
Since these are not directories, we do not call remove_dirs() which was
the only place that had the is_nonbare_repository_dir() safety check --
resulting in us deleting both the untracked file and the tracked (and
possibly dirty) file.
One possible fix for this issue would be walking the parent directories
of each path and checking if they represent nonbare repositories, but
that would be wasteful. Even if we added caching of some sort, it's
still a waste because we should have been able to check that "nested/"
represented a nonbare repository before even descending into it in the
first place. Add a DIR_SKIP_NESTED_GIT flag to dir_struct.flags and use
it to prevent fill_directory() and friends from descending into nested
git repos.
With this change, we also modify two regression tests added in commit
91479b9c72f1 ("t7300: add tests to document behavior of clean and nested
git", 2015-06-15). That commit, nor its series, nor the six previous
iterations of that series on the mailing list discussed why those tests
coded the expectation they did. In fact, it appears their purpose was
simply to test _existing_ behavior to make sure that the performance
changes didn't change the behavior. However, these two tests directly
contradicted the manpage's claims that two -f's were required to delete
files/directories under a nested git repository. While one could argue
that the user gave an explicit path which matched files/directories that
were within a nested repository, there's a slippery slope that becomes
very difficult for users to understand once you go down that route (e.g.
what if they specified "git clean -f -d '*.c'"?) It would also be hard
to explain what the exact behavior was; avoid such problems by making it
really simple.
Also, clean up some grammar errors describing this functionality in the
git-clean manpage.
Finally, there are still a couple bugs with -ffd not cleaning out enough
(e.g. missing the nested .git) and with -ffdX possibly cleaning out the
wrong files (paying attention to outer .gitignore instead of inner).
This patch does not address these cases at all (and does not change the
behavior relative to those flags), it only fixes the handling when given
a single -f. See
https://public-inbox.org/git/20190905212043.GC32087@szeder.dev/ for more
discussion of the -ffd[X?] bugs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:35:02 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'giving path in nested git work tree will NOT remove it' '
|
2015-06-15 19:39:53 +00:00
|
|
|
rm -fr repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p bar/baz &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_commit msg bar/baz/hello.world
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d repo/bar/baz &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file repo/.git/HEAD &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_dir repo/bar/ &&
|
clean: avoid removing untracked files in a nested git repository
Users expect files in a nested git repository to be left alone unless
sufficiently forced (with two -f's). Unfortunately, in certain
circumstances, git would delete both tracked (and possibly dirty) files
and untracked files within a nested repository. To explain how this
happens, let's contrast a couple cases. First, take the following
example setup (which assumes we are already within a git repo):
git init nested
cd nested
>tracked
git add tracked
git commit -m init
>untracked
cd ..
In this setup, everything works as expected; running 'git clean -fd'
will result in fill_directory() returning the following paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
and then correct_untracked_entries() would notice this can be compressed
to
nested/
and then since "nested/" is a directory, we would call
remove_dirs("nested/", ...), which would
check is_nonbare_repository_dir() and then decide to skip it.
However, if someone also creates an ignored file:
>nested/ignored
then running 'git clean -fd' would result in fill_directory() returning
the same paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
but correct_untracked_entries() will notice that we had ignored entries
under nested/ and thus simplify this list to
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
Since these are not directories, we do not call remove_dirs() which was
the only place that had the is_nonbare_repository_dir() safety check --
resulting in us deleting both the untracked file and the tracked (and
possibly dirty) file.
One possible fix for this issue would be walking the parent directories
of each path and checking if they represent nonbare repositories, but
that would be wasteful. Even if we added caching of some sort, it's
still a waste because we should have been able to check that "nested/"
represented a nonbare repository before even descending into it in the
first place. Add a DIR_SKIP_NESTED_GIT flag to dir_struct.flags and use
it to prevent fill_directory() and friends from descending into nested
git repos.
With this change, we also modify two regression tests added in commit
91479b9c72f1 ("t7300: add tests to document behavior of clean and nested
git", 2015-06-15). That commit, nor its series, nor the six previous
iterations of that series on the mailing list discussed why those tests
coded the expectation they did. In fact, it appears their purpose was
simply to test _existing_ behavior to make sure that the performance
changes didn't change the behavior. However, these two tests directly
contradicted the manpage's claims that two -f's were required to delete
files/directories under a nested git repository. While one could argue
that the user gave an explicit path which matched files/directories that
were within a nested repository, there's a slippery slope that becomes
very difficult for users to understand once you go down that route (e.g.
what if they specified "git clean -f -d '*.c'"?) It would also be hard
to explain what the exact behavior was; avoid such problems by making it
really simple.
Also, clean up some grammar errors describing this functionality in the
git-clean manpage.
Finally, there are still a couple bugs with -ffd not cleaning out enough
(e.g. missing the nested .git) and with -ffdX possibly cleaning out the
wrong files (paying attention to outer .gitignore instead of inner).
This patch does not address these cases at all (and does not change the
behavior relative to those flags), it only fixes the handling when given
a single -f. See
https://public-inbox.org/git/20190905212043.GC32087@szeder.dev/ for more
discussion of the -ffd[X?] bugs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:35:02 +00:00
|
|
|
test_path_is_file repo/bar/baz/hello.world
|
2015-06-15 19:39:53 +00:00
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'giving path to nested .git will not remove it' '
|
|
|
|
|
rm -fr repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir repo untracked &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_commit msg hello.world
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d repo/.git &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file repo/.git/HEAD &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_dir repo/.git/refs &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_dir repo/.git/objects &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_dir untracked/
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
clean: avoid removing untracked files in a nested git repository
Users expect files in a nested git repository to be left alone unless
sufficiently forced (with two -f's). Unfortunately, in certain
circumstances, git would delete both tracked (and possibly dirty) files
and untracked files within a nested repository. To explain how this
happens, let's contrast a couple cases. First, take the following
example setup (which assumes we are already within a git repo):
git init nested
cd nested
>tracked
git add tracked
git commit -m init
>untracked
cd ..
In this setup, everything works as expected; running 'git clean -fd'
will result in fill_directory() returning the following paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
and then correct_untracked_entries() would notice this can be compressed
to
nested/
and then since "nested/" is a directory, we would call
remove_dirs("nested/", ...), which would
check is_nonbare_repository_dir() and then decide to skip it.
However, if someone also creates an ignored file:
>nested/ignored
then running 'git clean -fd' would result in fill_directory() returning
the same paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
but correct_untracked_entries() will notice that we had ignored entries
under nested/ and thus simplify this list to
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
Since these are not directories, we do not call remove_dirs() which was
the only place that had the is_nonbare_repository_dir() safety check --
resulting in us deleting both the untracked file and the tracked (and
possibly dirty) file.
One possible fix for this issue would be walking the parent directories
of each path and checking if they represent nonbare repositories, but
that would be wasteful. Even if we added caching of some sort, it's
still a waste because we should have been able to check that "nested/"
represented a nonbare repository before even descending into it in the
first place. Add a DIR_SKIP_NESTED_GIT flag to dir_struct.flags and use
it to prevent fill_directory() and friends from descending into nested
git repos.
With this change, we also modify two regression tests added in commit
91479b9c72f1 ("t7300: add tests to document behavior of clean and nested
git", 2015-06-15). That commit, nor its series, nor the six previous
iterations of that series on the mailing list discussed why those tests
coded the expectation they did. In fact, it appears their purpose was
simply to test _existing_ behavior to make sure that the performance
changes didn't change the behavior. However, these two tests directly
contradicted the manpage's claims that two -f's were required to delete
files/directories under a nested git repository. While one could argue
that the user gave an explicit path which matched files/directories that
were within a nested repository, there's a slippery slope that becomes
very difficult for users to understand once you go down that route (e.g.
what if they specified "git clean -f -d '*.c'"?) It would also be hard
to explain what the exact behavior was; avoid such problems by making it
really simple.
Also, clean up some grammar errors describing this functionality in the
git-clean manpage.
Finally, there are still a couple bugs with -ffd not cleaning out enough
(e.g. missing the nested .git) and with -ffdX possibly cleaning out the
wrong files (paying attention to outer .gitignore instead of inner).
This patch does not address these cases at all (and does not change the
behavior relative to those flags), it only fixes the handling when given
a single -f. See
https://public-inbox.org/git/20190905212043.GC32087@szeder.dev/ for more
discussion of the -ffd[X?] bugs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:35:02 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'giving path to nested .git/ will NOT remove contents' '
|
2015-06-15 19:39:53 +00:00
|
|
|
rm -fr repo untracked &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir repo untracked &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_commit msg hello.world
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -d repo/.git/ &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_dir repo/.git &&
|
clean: avoid removing untracked files in a nested git repository
Users expect files in a nested git repository to be left alone unless
sufficiently forced (with two -f's). Unfortunately, in certain
circumstances, git would delete both tracked (and possibly dirty) files
and untracked files within a nested repository. To explain how this
happens, let's contrast a couple cases. First, take the following
example setup (which assumes we are already within a git repo):
git init nested
cd nested
>tracked
git add tracked
git commit -m init
>untracked
cd ..
In this setup, everything works as expected; running 'git clean -fd'
will result in fill_directory() returning the following paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
and then correct_untracked_entries() would notice this can be compressed
to
nested/
and then since "nested/" is a directory, we would call
remove_dirs("nested/", ...), which would
check is_nonbare_repository_dir() and then decide to skip it.
However, if someone also creates an ignored file:
>nested/ignored
then running 'git clean -fd' would result in fill_directory() returning
the same paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
but correct_untracked_entries() will notice that we had ignored entries
under nested/ and thus simplify this list to
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
Since these are not directories, we do not call remove_dirs() which was
the only place that had the is_nonbare_repository_dir() safety check --
resulting in us deleting both the untracked file and the tracked (and
possibly dirty) file.
One possible fix for this issue would be walking the parent directories
of each path and checking if they represent nonbare repositories, but
that would be wasteful. Even if we added caching of some sort, it's
still a waste because we should have been able to check that "nested/"
represented a nonbare repository before even descending into it in the
first place. Add a DIR_SKIP_NESTED_GIT flag to dir_struct.flags and use
it to prevent fill_directory() and friends from descending into nested
git repos.
With this change, we also modify two regression tests added in commit
91479b9c72f1 ("t7300: add tests to document behavior of clean and nested
git", 2015-06-15). That commit, nor its series, nor the six previous
iterations of that series on the mailing list discussed why those tests
coded the expectation they did. In fact, it appears their purpose was
simply to test _existing_ behavior to make sure that the performance
changes didn't change the behavior. However, these two tests directly
contradicted the manpage's claims that two -f's were required to delete
files/directories under a nested git repository. While one could argue
that the user gave an explicit path which matched files/directories that
were within a nested repository, there's a slippery slope that becomes
very difficult for users to understand once you go down that route (e.g.
what if they specified "git clean -f -d '*.c'"?) It would also be hard
to explain what the exact behavior was; avoid such problems by making it
really simple.
Also, clean up some grammar errors describing this functionality in the
git-clean manpage.
Finally, there are still a couple bugs with -ffd not cleaning out enough
(e.g. missing the nested .git) and with -ffdX possibly cleaning out the
wrong files (paying attention to outer .gitignore instead of inner).
This patch does not address these cases at all (and does not change the
behavior relative to those flags), it only fixes the handling when given
a single -f. See
https://public-inbox.org/git/20190905212043.GC32087@szeder.dev/ for more
discussion of the -ffd[X?] bugs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:35:02 +00:00
|
|
|
test_path_is_file repo/.git/HEAD &&
|
2015-06-15 19:39:53 +00:00
|
|
|
test_path_is_dir untracked/
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'force removal of nested git work tree' '
|
2012-03-15 08:04:12 +00:00
|
|
|
rm -fr foo bar baz &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p foo bar baz/boo &&
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init &&
|
2015-08-30 09:18:09 +00:00
|
|
|
test_commit nested hello.world
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
) &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd bar &&
|
|
|
|
|
>goodbye.people
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
2012-03-15 08:04:12 +00:00
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd baz/boo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init &&
|
2015-08-30 09:18:09 +00:00
|
|
|
test_commit deeply.nested deeper.world
|
2012-03-15 08:04:12 +00:00
|
|
|
) &&
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
git clean -f -f -d &&
|
|
|
|
|
! test -d foo &&
|
2012-03-15 08:04:12 +00:00
|
|
|
! test -d bar &&
|
|
|
|
|
! test -d baz
|
2009-06-30 22:33:45 +00:00
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-07-20 19:36:21 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -e' '
|
|
|
|
|
rm -fr repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd repo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git init &&
|
2010-09-15 20:58:22 +00:00
|
|
|
touch known 1 2 3 &&
|
2010-07-20 19:36:21 +00:00
|
|
|
git add known &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f -e 1 -e 2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -e 1 &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -e 2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
! (test -e 3) &&
|
|
|
|
|
test -e known
|
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-04-01 08:29:16 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success SANITY 'git clean -d with an unreadable empty directory' '
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
chmod a= foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -dfx foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
! test -d foo
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-10 20:37:30 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d respects pathspecs (dir is prefix of pathspec)' '
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p foobar &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -df foobar &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_dir foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing foobar
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d respects pathspecs (pathspec is prefix of dir)' '
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p foobar &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -df foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_dir foobar
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
clean: teach clean -d to preserve ignored paths
There is an implicit assumption that a directory containing only
untracked and ignored paths should itself be considered untracked. This
makes sense in use cases where we're asking if a directory should be
added to the git database, but not when we're asking if a directory can
be safely removed from the working tree; as a result, clean -d would
assume that an "untracked" directory containing ignored paths could be
deleted, even though doing so would also remove the ignored paths.
To get around this, we teach clean -d to collect ignored paths and skip
an untracked directory if it contained an ignored path, instead just
removing the untracked contents thereof. To achieve this, cmd_clean()
has to collect all untracked contents of untracked directories, in
addition to all ignored paths, to determine which untracked dirs must be
skipped (because they contain ignored paths) and which ones should *not*
be skipped.
For this purpose, correct_untracked_entries() is introduced to prune a
given dir_struct of untracked entries containing ignored paths and those
untracked entries encompassed by the untracked entries which are not
pruned away.
A memory leak is also fixed in cmd_clean().
This also fixes the known breakage in t7300, since clean -d now skips
untracked directories containing ignored paths.
Signed-off-by: Samuel Lijin <sxlijin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-05-23 10:09:37 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d skips untracked dirs containing ignored files' '
|
2017-05-18 08:21:49 +00:00
|
|
|
echo /foo/bar >.gitignore &&
|
|
|
|
|
echo ignoreme >>.gitignore &&
|
|
|
|
|
rm -rf foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p foo/a/aa/aaa foo/b/bb/bbb &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch foo/bar foo/baz foo/a/aa/ignoreme foo/b/ignoreme foo/b/bb/1 foo/b/bb/2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -df &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_dir foo &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file foo/bar &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing foo/baz &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file foo/a/aa/ignoreme &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing foo/a/aa/aaa &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file foo/b/ignoreme &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing foo/b/bb
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
clean: avoid removing untracked files in a nested git repository
Users expect files in a nested git repository to be left alone unless
sufficiently forced (with two -f's). Unfortunately, in certain
circumstances, git would delete both tracked (and possibly dirty) files
and untracked files within a nested repository. To explain how this
happens, let's contrast a couple cases. First, take the following
example setup (which assumes we are already within a git repo):
git init nested
cd nested
>tracked
git add tracked
git commit -m init
>untracked
cd ..
In this setup, everything works as expected; running 'git clean -fd'
will result in fill_directory() returning the following paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
and then correct_untracked_entries() would notice this can be compressed
to
nested/
and then since "nested/" is a directory, we would call
remove_dirs("nested/", ...), which would
check is_nonbare_repository_dir() and then decide to skip it.
However, if someone also creates an ignored file:
>nested/ignored
then running 'git clean -fd' would result in fill_directory() returning
the same paths:
nested/
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
but correct_untracked_entries() will notice that we had ignored entries
under nested/ and thus simplify this list to
nested/tracked
nested/untracked
Since these are not directories, we do not call remove_dirs() which was
the only place that had the is_nonbare_repository_dir() safety check --
resulting in us deleting both the untracked file and the tracked (and
possibly dirty) file.
One possible fix for this issue would be walking the parent directories
of each path and checking if they represent nonbare repositories, but
that would be wasteful. Even if we added caching of some sort, it's
still a waste because we should have been able to check that "nested/"
represented a nonbare repository before even descending into it in the
first place. Add a DIR_SKIP_NESTED_GIT flag to dir_struct.flags and use
it to prevent fill_directory() and friends from descending into nested
git repos.
With this change, we also modify two regression tests added in commit
91479b9c72f1 ("t7300: add tests to document behavior of clean and nested
git", 2015-06-15). That commit, nor its series, nor the six previous
iterations of that series on the mailing list discussed why those tests
coded the expectation they did. In fact, it appears their purpose was
simply to test _existing_ behavior to make sure that the performance
changes didn't change the behavior. However, these two tests directly
contradicted the manpage's claims that two -f's were required to delete
files/directories under a nested git repository. While one could argue
that the user gave an explicit path which matched files/directories that
were within a nested repository, there's a slippery slope that becomes
very difficult for users to understand once you go down that route (e.g.
what if they specified "git clean -f -d '*.c'"?) It would also be hard
to explain what the exact behavior was; avoid such problems by making it
really simple.
Also, clean up some grammar errors describing this functionality in the
git-clean manpage.
Finally, there are still a couple bugs with -ffd not cleaning out enough
(e.g. missing the nested .git) and with -ffdX possibly cleaning out the
wrong files (paying attention to outer .gitignore instead of inner).
This patch does not address these cases at all (and does not change the
behavior relative to those flags), it only fixes the handling when given
a single -f. See
https://public-inbox.org/git/20190905212043.GC32087@szeder.dev/ for more
discussion of the -ffd[X?] bugs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:35:02 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean -d skips nested repo containing ignored files' '
|
2019-08-25 18:59:18 +00:00
|
|
|
test_when_finished "rm -rf nested-repo-with-ignored-file" &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git init nested-repo-with-ignored-file &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
cd nested-repo-with-ignored-file &&
|
|
|
|
|
>file &&
|
|
|
|
|
git add file &&
|
|
|
|
|
git commit -m Initial &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# This file is ignored by a .gitignore rule in the outer repo
|
|
|
|
|
# added in the previous test.
|
|
|
|
|
>ignoreme
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -fd &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file nested-repo-with-ignored-file/.git/index &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file nested-repo-with-ignored-file/ignoreme &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_file nested-repo-with-ignored-file/file
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
dir: if our pathspec might match files under a dir, recurse into it
For git clean, if a directory is entirely untracked and the user did not
specify -d (corresponding to DIR_SHOW_IGNORED_TOO), then we usually do
not want to remove that directory and thus do not recurse into it.
However, if the user manually specified specific (or even globbed) paths
somewhere under that directory to remove, then we need to recurse into
the directory to make sure we remove the relevant paths under that
directory as the user requested.
Note that this does not mean that the recursed-into directory will be
added to dir->entries for later removal; as of a few commits earlier in
this series, there is another more strict match check that is run after
returning from a recursed-into directory before deciding to add it to the
list of entries. Therefore, this will only result in files underneath
the given directory which match one of the pathspecs being added to the
entries list.
Two notes of potential interest to future readers:
* If we wanted to only recurse into a directory when it is specifically
matched rather than matched-via-glob (e.g. '*.c'), then we could do
so via making the final non-zero return in match_pathspec_item be
MATCHED_RECURSIVELY instead of MATCHED_RECURSIVELY_LEADING_PATHSPEC.
(Note that the relative order of MATCHED_RECURSIVELY_LEADING_PATHSPEC
and MATCHED_RECURSIVELY are important for such a change.) I was
leaving open that possibility while writing an RFC asking for the
behavior we want, but even though we don't want it, that knowledge
might help you understand the code flow better.
* There is a growing amount of logic in read_directory_recursive() for
deciding whether to recurse into a subdirectory. However, there is a
comment immediately preceding this logic that says to recurse if
instructed by treat_path(). It may be better for the logic in
read_directory_recursive() to ultimately be moved to treat_path() (or
another function it calls, such as treat_directory()), but I have
left that for someone else to tackle in the future.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:34:58 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean handles being told what to clean' '
|
t7300: add testcases showing failure to clean specified pathspecs
Someone brought me a testcase where multiple git-clean invocations were
required to clean out unwanted files:
mkdir d{1,2}
touch d{1,2}/ut
touch d1/t && git add d1/t
With this setup, the user would need to run
git clean -ffd */ut
twice to delete both ut files.
A little testing showed some interesting variants:
* If only one of those two ut files existed (either one), then only one
clean command would be necessary.
* If both directories had tracked files, then only one git clean would
be necessary to clean both files.
* If both directories had no tracked files then the clean command above
would never clean either of the untracked files despite the pathspec
explicitly calling both of them out.
A bisect showed that the failure to clean out the files started with
commit cf424f5fd89b ("clean: respect pathspecs with "-d", 2014-03-10).
However, that pointed to a separate issue: while the "-d" flag was used
by the original user who showed me this problem, that flag should have
been irrelevant to this problem. Testing again without the "-d" flag
showed that the same buggy behavior exists without using that flag, and
has in fact existed since before cf424f5fd89b.
Although these problems at first are perceived to be different (e.g.
never clearing out the requested files vs. taking multiple invocations
to get everything cleared out), they are actually just different
manifestations of the same problem. The case with multiple directories
that have no tracked files is the more general case; solving it will
solve all the others. So, I concentrate on it. Add testcases showing
that multiple untracked files within entirely untracked directories
cannot be cleaned when specifying these files to git clean via
pathspecs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:34:53 +00:00
|
|
|
mkdir -p d1 d2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch d1/ut d2/ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f */ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing d1/ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing d2/ut
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
dir: also check directories for matching pathspecs
Even if a directory doesn't match a pathspec, it is possible, depending
on the precise pathspecs, that some file underneath it might. So we
special case and recurse into the directory for such situations. However,
we previously always added any untracked directory that we recursed into
to the list of untracked paths, regardless of whether the directory
itself matched the pathspec.
For the case of git-clean and a set of pathspecs of "dir/file" and "more",
this caused a problem because we'd end up with dir entries for both of
"dir"
"dir/file"
Then correct_untracked_entries() would try to helpfully prune duplicates
for us by removing "dir/file" since it's under "dir", leaving us with
"dir"
Since the original pathspec only had "dir/file", the only entry left
doesn't match and leaves nothing to be removed. (Note that if only one
pathspec was specified, e.g. only "dir/file", then the common_prefix_len
optimizations in fill_directory would cause us to bypass this problem,
making it appear in simple tests that we could correctly remove manually
specified pathspecs.)
Fix this by actually checking whether the directory we are about to add
to the list of dir entries actually matches the pathspec; only do this
matching check after we have already returned from recursing into the
directory.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:34:56 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean handles being told what to clean, with -d' '
|
t7300: add testcases showing failure to clean specified pathspecs
Someone brought me a testcase where multiple git-clean invocations were
required to clean out unwanted files:
mkdir d{1,2}
touch d{1,2}/ut
touch d1/t && git add d1/t
With this setup, the user would need to run
git clean -ffd */ut
twice to delete both ut files.
A little testing showed some interesting variants:
* If only one of those two ut files existed (either one), then only one
clean command would be necessary.
* If both directories had tracked files, then only one git clean would
be necessary to clean both files.
* If both directories had no tracked files then the clean command above
would never clean either of the untracked files despite the pathspec
explicitly calling both of them out.
A bisect showed that the failure to clean out the files started with
commit cf424f5fd89b ("clean: respect pathspecs with "-d", 2014-03-10).
However, that pointed to a separate issue: while the "-d" flag was used
by the original user who showed me this problem, that flag should have
been irrelevant to this problem. Testing again without the "-d" flag
showed that the same buggy behavior exists without using that flag, and
has in fact existed since before cf424f5fd89b.
Although these problems at first are perceived to be different (e.g.
never clearing out the requested files vs. taking multiple invocations
to get everything cleared out), they are actually just different
manifestations of the same problem. The case with multiple directories
that have no tracked files is the more general case; solving it will
solve all the others. So, I concentrate on it. Add testcases showing
that multiple untracked files within entirely untracked directories
cannot be cleaned when specifying these files to git clean via
pathspecs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:34:53 +00:00
|
|
|
mkdir -p d1 d2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch d1/ut d2/ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -ffd */ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing d1/ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing d2/ut
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
dir: if our pathspec might match files under a dir, recurse into it
For git clean, if a directory is entirely untracked and the user did not
specify -d (corresponding to DIR_SHOW_IGNORED_TOO), then we usually do
not want to remove that directory and thus do not recurse into it.
However, if the user manually specified specific (or even globbed) paths
somewhere under that directory to remove, then we need to recurse into
the directory to make sure we remove the relevant paths under that
directory as the user requested.
Note that this does not mean that the recursed-into directory will be
added to dir->entries for later removal; as of a few commits earlier in
this series, there is another more strict match check that is run after
returning from a recursed-into directory before deciding to add it to the
list of entries. Therefore, this will only result in files underneath
the given directory which match one of the pathspecs being added to the
entries list.
Two notes of potential interest to future readers:
* If we wanted to only recurse into a directory when it is specifically
matched rather than matched-via-glob (e.g. '*.c'), then we could do
so via making the final non-zero return in match_pathspec_item be
MATCHED_RECURSIVELY instead of MATCHED_RECURSIVELY_LEADING_PATHSPEC.
(Note that the relative order of MATCHED_RECURSIVELY_LEADING_PATHSPEC
and MATCHED_RECURSIVELY are important for such a change.) I was
leaving open that possibility while writing an RFC asking for the
behavior we want, but even though we don't want it, that knowledge
might help you understand the code flow better.
* There is a growing amount of logic in read_directory_recursive() for
deciding whether to recurse into a subdirectory. However, there is a
comment immediately preceding this logic that says to recurse if
instructed by treat_path(). It may be better for the logic in
read_directory_recursive() to ultimately be moved to treat_path() (or
another function it calls, such as treat_directory()), but I have
left that for someone else to tackle in the future.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:34:58 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean works if a glob is passed without -d' '
|
t7300: add testcases showing failure to clean specified pathspecs
Someone brought me a testcase where multiple git-clean invocations were
required to clean out unwanted files:
mkdir d{1,2}
touch d{1,2}/ut
touch d1/t && git add d1/t
With this setup, the user would need to run
git clean -ffd */ut
twice to delete both ut files.
A little testing showed some interesting variants:
* If only one of those two ut files existed (either one), then only one
clean command would be necessary.
* If both directories had tracked files, then only one git clean would
be necessary to clean both files.
* If both directories had no tracked files then the clean command above
would never clean either of the untracked files despite the pathspec
explicitly calling both of them out.
A bisect showed that the failure to clean out the files started with
commit cf424f5fd89b ("clean: respect pathspecs with "-d", 2014-03-10).
However, that pointed to a separate issue: while the "-d" flag was used
by the original user who showed me this problem, that flag should have
been irrelevant to this problem. Testing again without the "-d" flag
showed that the same buggy behavior exists without using that flag, and
has in fact existed since before cf424f5fd89b.
Although these problems at first are perceived to be different (e.g.
never clearing out the requested files vs. taking multiple invocations
to get everything cleared out), they are actually just different
manifestations of the same problem. The case with multiple directories
that have no tracked files is the more general case; solving it will
solve all the others. So, I concentrate on it. Add testcases showing
that multiple untracked files within entirely untracked directories
cannot be cleaned when specifying these files to git clean via
pathspecs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:34:53 +00:00
|
|
|
mkdir -p d1 d2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch d1/ut d2/ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -f "*ut" &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing d1/ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing d2/ut
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
dir: also check directories for matching pathspecs
Even if a directory doesn't match a pathspec, it is possible, depending
on the precise pathspecs, that some file underneath it might. So we
special case and recurse into the directory for such situations. However,
we previously always added any untracked directory that we recursed into
to the list of untracked paths, regardless of whether the directory
itself matched the pathspec.
For the case of git-clean and a set of pathspecs of "dir/file" and "more",
this caused a problem because we'd end up with dir entries for both of
"dir"
"dir/file"
Then correct_untracked_entries() would try to helpfully prune duplicates
for us by removing "dir/file" since it's under "dir", leaving us with
"dir"
Since the original pathspec only had "dir/file", the only entry left
doesn't match and leaves nothing to be removed. (Note that if only one
pathspec was specified, e.g. only "dir/file", then the common_prefix_len
optimizations in fill_directory would cause us to bypass this problem,
making it appear in simple tests that we could correctly remove manually
specified pathspecs.)
Fix this by actually checking whether the directory we are about to add
to the list of dir entries actually matches the pathspec; only do this
matching check after we have already returned from recursing into the
directory.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:34:56 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'git clean works if a glob is passed with -d' '
|
t7300: add testcases showing failure to clean specified pathspecs
Someone brought me a testcase where multiple git-clean invocations were
required to clean out unwanted files:
mkdir d{1,2}
touch d{1,2}/ut
touch d1/t && git add d1/t
With this setup, the user would need to run
git clean -ffd */ut
twice to delete both ut files.
A little testing showed some interesting variants:
* If only one of those two ut files existed (either one), then only one
clean command would be necessary.
* If both directories had tracked files, then only one git clean would
be necessary to clean both files.
* If both directories had no tracked files then the clean command above
would never clean either of the untracked files despite the pathspec
explicitly calling both of them out.
A bisect showed that the failure to clean out the files started with
commit cf424f5fd89b ("clean: respect pathspecs with "-d", 2014-03-10).
However, that pointed to a separate issue: while the "-d" flag was used
by the original user who showed me this problem, that flag should have
been irrelevant to this problem. Testing again without the "-d" flag
showed that the same buggy behavior exists without using that flag, and
has in fact existed since before cf424f5fd89b.
Although these problems at first are perceived to be different (e.g.
never clearing out the requested files vs. taking multiple invocations
to get everything cleared out), they are actually just different
manifestations of the same problem. The case with multiple directories
that have no tracked files is the more general case; solving it will
solve all the others. So, I concentrate on it. Add testcases showing
that multiple untracked files within entirely untracked directories
cannot be cleaned when specifying these files to git clean via
pathspecs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-17 16:34:53 +00:00
|
|
|
mkdir -p d1 d2 &&
|
|
|
|
|
touch d1/ut d2/ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
git clean -ffd "*ut" &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing d1/ut &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing d2/ut
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-07-18 09:30:33 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success MINGW 'handle clean & core.longpaths = false nicely' '
|
|
|
|
|
test_config core.longpaths false &&
|
|
|
|
|
a50=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p $a50$a50/$a50$a50/$a50$a50 &&
|
|
|
|
|
: >"$a50$a50/test.txt" 2>"$a50$a50/$a50$a50/$a50$a50/test.txt" &&
|
|
|
|
|
# create a temporary outside the working tree to hide from "git clean"
|
|
|
|
|
test_must_fail git clean -xdf 2>.git/err &&
|
|
|
|
|
# grepping for a strerror string is unportable but it is OK here with
|
|
|
|
|
# MINGW prereq
|
|
|
|
|
test_i18ngrep "too long" .git/err
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
dir: treat_leading_path() and read_directory_recursive(), round 2
I was going to title this "dir: more synchronizing of
treat_leading_path() and read_directory_recursive()", a nod to commit
777b42034764 ("dir: synchronize treat_leading_path() and
read_directory_recursive()", 2019-12-19), but the title was too long.
Anyway, first the backstory...
fill_directory() has always had a slightly error-prone interface: it
returns a subset of paths which *might* match the specified pathspec; it
was intended to prune away some paths which didn't match the specified
pathspec and keep at least all the ones that did match it. Given this
interface, callers were responsible to post-process the results and
check whether each actually matched the pathspec.
builtin/clean.c did this. It would first prune out duplicates (e.g. if
"dir" was returned as well as all files under "dir/", then it would
simplify this to just "dir"), and after pruning duplicates it would
compare the remaining paths to the specified pathspec(s). This
post-processing itself could run into problems, though, as noted in
commit 404ebceda01c ("dir: also check directories for matching
pathspecs", 2019-09-17):
For the case of git-clean and a set of pathspecs of "dir/file" and
"more", this caused a problem because we'd end up with dir entries
for both of
"dir"
"dir/file"
Then correct_untracked_entries() would try to helpfully prune
duplicates for us by removing "dir/file" since it's under "dir",
leaving us with
"dir"
Since the original pathspec only had "dir/file", the only entry left
doesn't match and leaves nothing to be removed. (Note that if only
one pathspec was specified, e.g. only "dir/file", then the
common_prefix_len optimizations in fill_directory would cause us to
bypass this problem, making it appear in simple tests that we could
correctly remove manually specified pathspecs.)
That commit fixed the issue -- when multiple pathspecs were specified --
by making sure fill_directory() wouldn't return both "dir" and
"dir/file" outside the common_prefix_len optimization path. This is
where it starts to get fun.
In commit b9670c1f5e6b ("dir: fix checks on common prefix directory",
2019-12-19), we noticed that the common_prefix_len wasn't doing
appropriate checks and letting all kinds of stuff through, resulting in
recursing into .git/ directories and other craziness. So it started
locking down and doing checks on pathnames within that code path. That
continued with commit 777b42034764 ("dir: synchronize
treat_leading_path() and read_directory_recursive()", 2019-12-19), which
noted the following:
Our optimization to avoid calling into read_directory_recursive()
when all pathspecs have a common leading directory mean that we need
to match the logic that read_directory_recursive() would use if we
had just called it from the root. Since it does more than call
treat_path() we need to copy that same logic.
...and then it more forcefully addressed the issue with this wonderfully
ironic statement:
Needing to duplicate logic like this means it is guaranteed someone
will eventually need to make further changes and forget to update
both locations. It is tempting to just nuke the leading_directory
special casing to avoid such bugs and simplify the code, but
unpack_trees' verify_clean_subdirectory() also calls
read_directory() and does so with a non-empty leading path, so I'm
hesitant to try to restructure further. Add obnoxious warnings to
treat_leading_path() and read_directory_recursive() to try to warn
people of such problems.
You would think that with such a strongly worded description, that its
author would have actually ensured that the logic in
treat_leading_path() and read_directory_recursive() did actually match
and that *everything* that was needed had at least been copied over at
the time that this paragraph was written. But you'd be wrong, I messed
it up by missing part of the logic.
Copy the missing bits to fix the new final test in t7300.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-01-16 20:21:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'clean untracked paths by pathspec' '
|
2020-01-16 20:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
git init untracked &&
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir untracked/dir &&
|
|
|
|
|
echo >untracked/dir/file.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
git -C untracked clean -f dir/file.txt &&
|
|
|
|
|
ls untracked/dir >actual &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_must_be_empty actual
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-05-06 19:50:54 +00:00
|
|
|
test_done
|