development/git
development/git
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git synced 2024-08-24 18:26:02 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
git/t/t5600-clone-fail-cleanup.sh

53 lines
1.5 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (C) 2006 Carl D. Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
#
tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999) Converts tests between t3600-t6300. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-03 08:59:29 +00:00
test_description='test git clone to cleanup after failure
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999) Converts tests between t3600-t6300. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-03 08:59:29 +00:00
This test covers the fact that if git clone fails, it should remove
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
the directory it created, to avoid the user having to manually
remove the directory before attempting a clone again.'
. ./test-lib.sh
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 \
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
'clone of non-existent source should fail' \
tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999) Converts tests between t3600-t6300. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-03 08:59:29 +00:00
'test_must_fail git clone foo bar'
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
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 \
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
'failed clone should not leave a directory' \
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 -d bar'
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
# Need a repo to clone
test_create_repo foo
# clone doesn't like it if there is no HEAD. Is that a bug?
(cd foo && touch file && git add file && git commit -m 'add file' >/dev/null 2>&1)
tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999) Converts tests between t3600-t6300. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-03 08:59:29 +00:00
# source repository given to git clone should be relative to the
clone: the given repository dir should be relative to $PWD the repository argument for git-clone should be relative to $PWD instead of the given target directory. The old behavior gave us surprising success and you need a few minute to know why it worked. GIT_DIR is already exported so no need to cd into $D. And this makes $PWD for git-fetch-pack, which is the actual command to take the given repository dir, the same as git-clone. Signed-off-by: Yasushi SHOJI <yashi@atmark-techno.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-10-14 12:02:51 +00:00
# current path not to the target dir
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$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 \
clone: the given repository dir should be relative to $PWD the repository argument for git-clone should be relative to $PWD instead of the given target directory. The old behavior gave us surprising success and you need a few minute to know why it worked. GIT_DIR is already exported so no need to cd into $D. And this makes $PWD for git-fetch-pack, which is the actual command to take the given repository dir, the same as git-clone. Signed-off-by: Yasushi SHOJI <yashi@atmark-techno.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-10-14 12:02:51 +00:00
'clone of non-existent (relative to $PWD) source should fail' \
tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999) Converts tests between t3600-t6300. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-03 08:59:29 +00:00
'test_must_fail git clone ../foo baz'
clone: the given repository dir should be relative to $PWD the repository argument for git-clone should be relative to $PWD instead of the given target directory. The old behavior gave us surprising success and you need a few minute to know why it worked. GIT_DIR is already exported so no need to cd into $D. And this makes $PWD for git-fetch-pack, which is the actual command to take the given repository dir, the same as git-clone. Signed-off-by: Yasushi SHOJI <yashi@atmark-techno.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-10-14 12:02:51 +00:00
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
test_expect_success \
'clone should work now that source exists' \
tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999) Converts tests between t3600-t6300. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-03 08:59:29 +00:00
'git clone foo bar'
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
test_expect_success \
Assorted typo fixes Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-02-04 04:49:16 +00:00
'successful clone must leave the directory' \
clone: support atomic operation with --separate-git-dir Since b57fb80a7d (init, clone: support --separate-git-dir for .git file) git clone supports the --separate-git-dir option to create the git dir outside the work tree. But when that option is used, the git dir won't be deleted in case the clone fails like it would be without this option. This makes clone lose its atomicity as in case of a failure a partly set up git dir is left behind. A real world example where this leads to problems is when "git submodule update" fails to clone a submodule and later calls to "git submodule update" stumble over the partially set up git dir and try to revive the submodule from there, which then fails with a not very user friendly error message. Fix that by updating the junk_git_dir variable (used to remember if and what git dir should be removed in case of failure) to the new value given with the --seperate-git-dir option. Also add a test for this to t5600 (and while at it fix the former last test to not cd into a directory to test for its existence but use "test -d" instead). Reported-by: Manlio Perillo <manlio.perillo@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-01-05 20:17:04 +00:00
'test -d bar'
test_expect_success 'failed clone --separate-git-dir should not leave any directories' '
mkdir foo/.git/objects.bak/ &&
mv foo/.git/objects/* foo/.git/objects.bak/ &&
test_must_fail git clone --separate-git-dir gitdir foo worktree &&
test_must_fail test -e gitdir &&
test_must_fail test -e worktree &&
mv foo/.git/objects.bak/* foo/.git/objects/ &&
rmdir foo/.git/objects.bak
'
New test to verify that when git-clone fails it cleans up the new directory. Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-17 21:33:28 +00:00
test_done
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink