git/t/t3210-pack-refs.sh

155 lines
4.1 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2005 Amos Waterland
# Copyright (c) 2006 Christian Couder
#
test_description='git pack-refs should not change the branch semantic
This test runs git pack-refs and git show-ref and checks that the branch
semantic is still the same.
'
. ./test-lib.sh
echo '[core] logallrefupdates = true' >>.git/config
test_expect_success \
'prepare a trivial repository' \
'echo Hello > A &&
git update-index --add A &&
git commit -m "Initial commit." &&
HEAD=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD)'
SHA1=
test_expect_success \
'see if git show-ref works as expected' \
'git branch a &&
SHA1=`cat .git/refs/heads/a` &&
echo "$SHA1 refs/heads/a" >expect &&
git show-ref a >result &&
test_cmp expect result'
test_expect_success \
'see if a branch still exists when packed' \
'git branch b &&
git pack-refs --all &&
rm -f .git/refs/heads/b &&
echo "$SHA1 refs/heads/b" >expect &&
git show-ref b >result &&
test_cmp expect result'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success 'git branch c/d should barf if branch c exists' '
git branch c &&
git pack-refs --all &&
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
rm -f .git/refs/heads/c &&
test_must_fail git branch c/d
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
'
test_expect_success \
'see if a branch still exists after git pack-refs --prune' \
'git branch e &&
git pack-refs --all --prune &&
echo "$SHA1 refs/heads/e" >expect &&
git show-ref e >result &&
test_cmp expect result'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success 'see if git pack-refs --prune remove ref files' '
git branch f &&
git pack-refs --all --prune &&
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
! test -f .git/refs/heads/f
'
test_expect_success 'see if git pack-refs --prune removes empty dirs' '
git branch r/s/t &&
git pack-refs --all --prune &&
! test -e .git/refs/heads/r
'
test_expect_success \
'git branch g should work when git branch g/h has been deleted' \
'git branch g/h &&
git pack-refs --all --prune &&
git branch -d g/h &&
git branch g &&
git pack-refs --all &&
git branch -d g'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
test_expect_success 'git branch i/j/k should barf if branch i exists' '
git branch i &&
git pack-refs --all --prune &&
test_must_fail git branch i/j/k
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 09:50:53 +00:00
'
test_expect_success \
'test git branch k after branch k/l/m and k/lm have been deleted' \
'git branch k/l &&
git branch k/lm &&
git branch -d k/l &&
git branch k/l/m &&
git branch -d k/l/m &&
git branch -d k/lm &&
git branch k'
test_expect_success \
'test git branch n after some branch deletion and pruning' \
'git branch n/o &&
git branch n/op &&
git branch -d n/o &&
git branch n/o/p &&
git branch -d n/op &&
git pack-refs --all --prune &&
git branch -d n/o/p &&
git branch n'
test_expect_success \
'see if up-to-date packed refs are preserved' \
'git branch q &&
git pack-refs --all --prune &&
git update-ref refs/heads/q refs/heads/q &&
! test -f .git/refs/heads/q'
test_expect_success 'pack, prune and repack' '
git tag foo &&
git pack-refs --all --prune &&
git show-ref >all-of-them &&
git pack-refs &&
git show-ref >again &&
test_cmp all-of-them again
'
test_expect_success 'explicit pack-refs with dangling packed reference' '
git commit --allow-empty -m "soon to be garbage-collected" &&
git pack-refs --all &&
git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
git reflog expire --expire=all --all &&
git prune --expire=all &&
git pack-refs --all 2>result &&
test_cmp /dev/null result
'
test_expect_success 'delete ref with dangling packed version' '
git checkout -b lamb &&
git commit --allow-empty -m "future garbage" &&
git pack-refs --all &&
git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
git checkout master &&
git reflog expire --expire=all --all &&
git prune --expire=all &&
git branch -d lamb 2>result &&
test_cmp /dev/null result
'
repack_without_ref(): silence errors for dangling packed refs Stop emitting an error message when deleting a packed reference if we find another dangling packed reference that is overridden by a loose reference. See the previous commit for a longer explanation of the issue. We have to be careful to make sure that the invalid packed reference really *is* overridden by a loose reference; otherwise what we have found is repository corruption, which we *should* report. Please note that this approach is vulnerable to a race condition similar to the race conditions already known to affect packed references [1]: * Process 1 tries to peel packed reference X as part of deleting another packed reference. It discovers that X does not refer to a valid object (because the object that it referred to has been garbage collected). * Process 2 tries to delete reference X. It starts by deleting the loose reference X. * Process 1 checks whether there is a loose reference X. There is not (it has just been deleted by process 2), so process 1 reports a spurious error "X does not point to a valid object!" The worst case seems relatively harmless, and the fix is identical to the fix that will be needed for the other race conditions (namely holding a lock on the packed-refs file during *all* reference deletions), so we leave the cleaning up of all of them as a future project. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/211956 Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-04-22 19:52:25 +00:00
test_expect_success 'delete ref while another dangling packed ref' '
git branch lamb &&
git commit --allow-empty -m "future garbage" &&
git pack-refs --all &&
git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
git reflog expire --expire=all --all &&
git prune --expire=all &&
git branch -d lamb 2>result &&
test_cmp /dev/null result
'
test_done