development/git
development/git
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git synced 2024-10-30 14:03:28 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity
git/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh

142 lines
4 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2006 Shawn O. Pearce
#
test_description='Test the update hook infrastructure.'
. ./test-lib.sh
test_expect_success setup '
echo This is a test. >a &&
Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-03 05:52:14 +00:00
git update-index --add a &&
tree0=$(git write-tree) &&
commit0=$(echo setup | git commit-tree $tree0) &&
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
echo We hope it works. >a &&
Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-03 05:52:14 +00:00
git update-index a &&
tree1=$(git write-tree) &&
commit1=$(echo modify | git commit-tree $tree1 -p $commit0) &&
t5[0-4]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main" Carefully excluding t5310, which is developed independently of the current patch series at the time of writing, we now use `main` as default branch in t5[0-4]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -- t5[0-4]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5310\*) This allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for those tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:29 +00:00
git update-ref refs/heads/main $commit0 &&
Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-03 05:52:14 +00:00
git update-ref refs/heads/tofail $commit1 &&
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 02:01:29 +00:00
git clone --bare ./. victim.git &&
GIT_DIR=victim.git git update-ref refs/heads/tofail $commit1 &&
t5[0-4]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main" Carefully excluding t5310, which is developed independently of the current patch series at the time of writing, we now use `main` as default branch in t5[0-4]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -- t5[0-4]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5310\*) This allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for those tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:29 +00:00
git update-ref refs/heads/main $commit1 &&
tests: use "test_hook" for misc "mkdir -p" and "chmod" cases Make use of "test_hook" in various cases that didn't fit neatly into preceding commits. Here we need to indent blocks in addition to changing the test code, or to make other small cosmetic changes. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-03-17 10:13:15 +00:00
git update-ref refs/heads/tofail $commit0 &&
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
tests: use "test_hook" for misc "mkdir -p" and "chmod" cases Make use of "test_hook" in various cases that didn't fit neatly into preceding commits. Here we need to indent blocks in addition to changing the test code, or to make other small cosmetic changes. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-03-17 10:13:15 +00:00
test_hook --setup -C victim.git pre-receive <<-\EOF &&
printf %s "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args
cat - >$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.stdin
echo STDOUT pre-receive
echo STDERR pre-receive >&2
EOF
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 21:52:05 +00:00
tests: use "test_hook" for misc "mkdir -p" and "chmod" cases Make use of "test_hook" in various cases that didn't fit neatly into preceding commits. Here we need to indent blocks in addition to changing the test code, or to make other small cosmetic changes. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-03-17 10:13:15 +00:00
test_hook --setup -C victim.git update <<-\EOF &&
echo "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/update.args
read x; printf %s "$x" >$GIT_DIR/update.stdin
echo STDOUT update $1
echo STDERR update $1 >&2
test "$1" = refs/heads/main || exit
EOF
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
tests: use "test_hook" for misc "mkdir -p" and "chmod" cases Make use of "test_hook" in various cases that didn't fit neatly into preceding commits. Here we need to indent blocks in addition to changing the test code, or to make other small cosmetic changes. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-03-17 10:13:15 +00:00
test_hook --setup -C victim.git post-receive <<-\EOF &&
printf %s "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/post-receive.args
cat - >$GIT_DIR/post-receive.stdin
echo STDOUT post-receive
echo STDERR post-receive >&2
EOF
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 21:52:05 +00:00
tests: use "test_hook" for misc "mkdir -p" and "chmod" cases Make use of "test_hook" in various cases that didn't fit neatly into preceding commits. Here we need to indent blocks in addition to changing the test code, or to make other small cosmetic changes. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-03-17 10:13:15 +00:00
test_hook --setup -C victim.git post-update <<-\EOF
echo "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/post-update.args
read x; printf %s "$x" >$GIT_DIR/post-update.stdin
echo STDOUT post-update
echo STDERR post-update >&2
EOF
'
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +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 push '
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 02:01:29 +00:00
test_must_fail git send-pack --force ./victim.git \
t5[0-4]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main" Carefully excluding t5310, which is developed independently of the current patch series at the time of writing, we now use `main` as default branch in t5[0-4]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -- t5[0-4]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5310\*) This allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for those tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:29 +00:00
main tofail >send.out 2>send.err
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 21:52:05 +00:00
'
test_expect_success 'updated as expected' '
t5[0-4]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main" Carefully excluding t5310, which is developed independently of the current patch series at the time of writing, we now use `main` as default branch in t5[0-4]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -- t5[0-4]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5310\*) This allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for those tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:29 +00:00
test $(GIT_DIR=victim.git git rev-parse main) = $commit1 &&
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 02:01:29 +00:00
test $(GIT_DIR=victim.git git rev-parse tofail) = $commit1
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
'
test_expect_success 'hooks ran' '
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 02:01:29 +00:00
test -f victim.git/pre-receive.args &&
test -f victim.git/pre-receive.stdin &&
test -f victim.git/update.args &&
test -f victim.git/update.stdin &&
test -f victim.git/post-receive.args &&
test -f victim.git/post-receive.stdin &&
test -f victim.git/post-update.args &&
test -f victim.git/post-update.stdin
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
'
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 08:28:16 +00:00
test_expect_success 'pre-receive hook input' '
t5[0-4]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main" Carefully excluding t5310, which is developed independently of the current patch series at the time of writing, we now use `main` as default branch in t5[0-4]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -- t5[0-4]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5310\*) This allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for those tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:29 +00:00
(echo $commit0 $commit1 refs/heads/main &&
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 08:28:16 +00:00
echo $commit1 $commit0 refs/heads/tofail
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 02:01:29 +00:00
) | test_cmp - victim.git/pre-receive.stdin
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 21:52:05 +00:00
'
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
test_expect_success 'update hook arguments' '
t5[0-4]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main" Carefully excluding t5310, which is developed independently of the current patch series at the time of writing, we now use `main` as default branch in t5[0-4]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -- t5[0-4]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5310\*) This allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for those tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:29 +00:00
(echo refs/heads/main $commit0 $commit1 &&
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 21:52:05 +00:00
echo refs/heads/tofail $commit1 $commit0
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 02:01:29 +00:00
) | test_cmp - victim.git/update.args
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 21:52:05 +00:00
'
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 08:28:16 +00:00
test_expect_success 'post-receive hook input' '
t5[0-4]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main" Carefully excluding t5310, which is developed independently of the current patch series at the time of writing, we now use `main` as default branch in t5[0-4]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -- t5[0-4]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5310\*) This allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for those tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:29 +00:00
echo $commit0 $commit1 refs/heads/main |
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 02:01:29 +00:00
test_cmp - victim.git/post-receive.stdin
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
'
test_expect_success 'post-update hook arguments' '
t5[0-4]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main" Carefully excluding t5310, which is developed independently of the current patch series at the time of writing, we now use `main` as default branch in t5[0-4]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -- t5[0-4]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5310\*) This allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for those tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:29 +00:00
echo refs/heads/main |
t5401: Use a bare repository for the remote peer We want to avoid the warnings (or later, test failures) about updating the current branch. It was never my intention to have this test deal with a repository with a working directory, and it is a very old bug that the test even used a non-bare repository for the remote side of the push operations. This fixes the interleaved output error we were seeing as a test failure by avoiding the giant warning message we were getting back about updating the current branch being risky. Its not a real fix, but is something we should do no matter what, because the behavior will change in the future to reject, and the test would break at that time. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 02:01:29 +00:00
test_cmp - victim.git/post-update.args
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
'
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 21:52:05 +00:00
test_expect_success 'all hook stdin is /dev/null' '
tests: use 'test_must_be_empty' instead of '! test -s' Using 'test_must_be_empty' is preferable to '! test -s', because it gives a helpful error message if the given file is unexpectedly not empty, while the latter remains completely silent. Furthermore, it also catches cases when the given file unexpectedly does not exist at all. This patch was basically created by: sed -i -e 's/! test -s/test_must_be_empty/' t[0-9]*.sh with the following notable exceptions: - The '! test -s' check in '.gitmodules ignore=dirty suppresses submodules with untracked content' in 't7508-status.sh' is left as-is, because it's bogus and, therefore, it's subject of a dedicated patch. - The '! test -s' checks in 't9131-git-svn-empty-symlink.sh' and 't9135-git-svn-moved-branch-empty-file.sh' are immediately preceeded by a 'test -f' to ensure that the files exist in the first place. 'test_must_be_empty' ensures that as well, so those 'test -f' commands are removed as well. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-19 21:57:22 +00:00
test_must_be_empty victim.git/update.stdin &&
test_must_be_empty victim.git/post-update.stdin
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
'
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 08:28:16 +00:00
test_expect_success 'all *-receive hook args are empty' '
tests: use 'test_must_be_empty' instead of '! test -s' Using 'test_must_be_empty' is preferable to '! test -s', because it gives a helpful error message if the given file is unexpectedly not empty, while the latter remains completely silent. Furthermore, it also catches cases when the given file unexpectedly does not exist at all. This patch was basically created by: sed -i -e 's/! test -s/test_must_be_empty/' t[0-9]*.sh with the following notable exceptions: - The '! test -s' check in '.gitmodules ignore=dirty suppresses submodules with untracked content' in 't7508-status.sh' is left as-is, because it's bogus and, therefore, it's subject of a dedicated patch. - The '! test -s' checks in 't9131-git-svn-empty-symlink.sh' and 't9135-git-svn-moved-branch-empty-file.sh' are immediately preceeded by a 'test -f' to ensure that the files exist in the first place. 'test_must_be_empty' ensures that as well, so those 'test -f' commands are removed as well. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-19 21:57:22 +00:00
test_must_be_empty victim.git/pre-receive.args &&
test_must_be_empty victim.git/post-receive.args
Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-10 08:28:16 +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 'send-pack produced no output' '
tests: use 'test_must_be_empty' instead of '! test -s' Using 'test_must_be_empty' is preferable to '! test -s', because it gives a helpful error message if the given file is unexpectedly not empty, while the latter remains completely silent. Furthermore, it also catches cases when the given file unexpectedly does not exist at all. This patch was basically created by: sed -i -e 's/! test -s/test_must_be_empty/' t[0-9]*.sh with the following notable exceptions: - The '! test -s' check in '.gitmodules ignore=dirty suppresses submodules with untracked content' in 't7508-status.sh' is left as-is, because it's bogus and, therefore, it's subject of a dedicated patch. - The '! test -s' checks in 't9131-git-svn-empty-symlink.sh' and 't9135-git-svn-moved-branch-empty-file.sh' are immediately preceeded by a 'test -f' to ensure that the files exist in the first place. 'test_must_be_empty' ensures that as well, so those 'test -f' commands are removed as well. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-19 21:57:22 +00:00
test_must_be_empty send.out
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
'
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 21:52:05 +00:00
cat <<EOF >expect
receive-pack: Send hook output over side band #2 If the client requests to enable side-band-64k capability we can safely send any hook stdout or stderr data down side band #2, so the client can present it to the user. If side-band-64k isn't enabled, hooks continue to inherit stderr from the parent receive-pack process. When the side band channel is being used the push client will wind up prefixing all server messages with "remote: ", just like fetch does, so our test vector has to be updated with the new expected output. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-05 20:57:42 +00:00
remote: STDOUT pre-receive
remote: STDERR pre-receive
t5[0-4]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main" Carefully excluding t5310, which is developed independently of the current patch series at the time of writing, we now use `main` as default branch in t5[0-4]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -- t5[0-4]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5310\*) This allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for those tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:29 +00:00
remote: STDOUT update refs/heads/main
remote: STDERR update refs/heads/main
receive-pack: Send hook output over side band #2 If the client requests to enable side-band-64k capability we can safely send any hook stdout or stderr data down side band #2, so the client can present it to the user. If side-band-64k isn't enabled, hooks continue to inherit stderr from the parent receive-pack process. When the side band channel is being used the push client will wind up prefixing all server messages with "remote: ", just like fetch does, so our test vector has to be updated with the new expected output. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-05 20:57:42 +00:00
remote: STDOUT update refs/heads/tofail
remote: STDERR update refs/heads/tofail
receive-pack: Send internal errors over side-band #2 If the client has requested side-band-64k capability, send any of the internal error or warning messages in the muxed side-band stream using the same band as our hook output, band #2. By putting everything in one stream we ensure all messages are processed by the side-band demuxer, avoiding interleaving between our own stderr and the side-band demuxer's stderr buffers. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 17:34:12 +00:00
remote: error: hook declined to update refs/heads/tofail
receive-pack: Send hook output over side band #2 If the client requests to enable side-band-64k capability we can safely send any hook stdout or stderr data down side band #2, so the client can present it to the user. If side-band-64k isn't enabled, hooks continue to inherit stderr from the parent receive-pack process. When the side band channel is being used the push client will wind up prefixing all server messages with "remote: ", just like fetch does, so our test vector has to be updated with the new expected output. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-05 20:57:42 +00:00
remote: STDOUT post-receive
remote: STDERR post-receive
remote: STDOUT post-update
remote: STDERR post-update
Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-07 21:52:05 +00:00
EOF
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
test_expect_success 'send-pack stderr contains hook messages' '
t/t5*: merge a "grep | sed" pipeline Signed-off-by: Beat Bolli <dev+git@drbeat.li> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2024-03-15 19:46:15 +00:00
sed -n "/^remote:/s/ *\$//p" send.err >actual &&
receive-pack: Send internal errors over side-band #2 If the client has requested side-band-64k capability, send any of the internal error or warning messages in the muxed side-band stream using the same band as our hook output, band #2. By putting everything in one stream we ensure all messages are processed by the side-band demuxer, avoiding interleaving between our own stderr and the side-band demuxer's stderr buffers. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-10 17:34:12 +00:00
test_cmp expect actual
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
'
receive-pack: allow hooks to ignore its standard input stream The pre-receive and post-receive hooks were designed to be an improvement over old style update and post-update hooks, which take the update information on their command line and are limited by the command line length limit. The same information is fed from the standard input to pre/post-receive hooks instead to lift this limitation. It has been mandatory for these new style hooks to consume the update information fully from the standard input stream. Otherwise, they would risk killing the receive-pack process via SIGPIPE. If a hook does not want to look at all the information, it is easy to send its standard input to /dev/null (perhaps a niche use of hook might need to know only the fact that a push was made, without having to know what objects have been pushed to update which refs), and this has already been done by existing hooks that are written carefully. However, because there is no good way to consistently fail hooks that do not consume the input fully (a small push may result in a short update record that may fit within the pipe buffer, to which the receive-pack process may manage to write before the hook has a chance to exit without reading anything, which will not result in a death-by-SIGPIPE of receive-pack), it can lead to a hard to diagnose "once in a blue moon" phantom failure. Lift this "hooks must consume their input fully" mandate. A mandate that is not enforced strictly is not helping us to catch mistakes in hooks. If a hook has a good reason to decide the outcome of its operation without reading the information we feed it, let it do so as it pleases. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-12 22:48:07 +00:00
test_expect_success 'pre-receive hook that forgets to read its input' '
test-lib-functions: add and use a "test_hook" wrapper Add a "test_hook" wrapper similar to the existing "test_config" wrapper added in d960c47a881 (test-lib: add helper functions for config, 2011-08-17). This wrapper: - Will clean up the hook with "test_when_finished", unless --setup is provided. - Will error if we clobber a hook, unless --clobber is provided. - Takes a name like "update" instead of ".git/hooks/update". - Accepts -C <dir>, like "test_config" and "test_commit". By using a wrapper we'll be able to easily change all the hook-related code that assumes that the template-created ".git/hooks" directory is created by "init", "clone" etc. once another topic follows-up and changes the test suite to stop creating trash directories using those templates. In addition this will make it easy to have the hooks configured using the "configuration-based hooks" topic, once we get around to integrating that. I.e. we'll be able to run the tests in a mode where we sometimes create a .git/hooks/<name>, and other times create a script in another location, and point the relevant configuration snippet to it. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-03-17 10:13:06 +00:00
test_hook --clobber -C victim.git pre-receive <<-\EOF &&
receive-pack: allow hooks to ignore its standard input stream The pre-receive and post-receive hooks were designed to be an improvement over old style update and post-update hooks, which take the update information on their command line and are limited by the command line length limit. The same information is fed from the standard input to pre/post-receive hooks instead to lift this limitation. It has been mandatory for these new style hooks to consume the update information fully from the standard input stream. Otherwise, they would risk killing the receive-pack process via SIGPIPE. If a hook does not want to look at all the information, it is easy to send its standard input to /dev/null (perhaps a niche use of hook might need to know only the fact that a push was made, without having to know what objects have been pushed to update which refs), and this has already been done by existing hooks that are written carefully. However, because there is no good way to consistently fail hooks that do not consume the input fully (a small push may result in a short update record that may fit within the pipe buffer, to which the receive-pack process may manage to write before the hook has a chance to exit without reading anything, which will not result in a death-by-SIGPIPE of receive-pack), it can lead to a hard to diagnose "once in a blue moon" phantom failure. Lift this "hooks must consume their input fully" mandate. A mandate that is not enforced strictly is not helping us to catch mistakes in hooks. If a hook has a good reason to decide the outcome of its operation without reading the information we feed it, let it do so as it pleases. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-12 22:48:07 +00:00
exit 0
EOF
rm -f victim.git/hooks/update victim.git/hooks/post-update &&
t5401: speed up creation of many branches One of the tests in t5401 creates a bunch of branches by calling git-branch(1) for every one of them. This is quite inefficient and takes a comparatively long time even on Unix systems where spawning processes is comparatively fast. Refactor it to instead use git-update-ref(1), which leads to an almost 10-fold speedup: ``` Benchmark 1: ./t5401-update-hooks.sh (rev = HEAD) Time (mean ± σ): 983.2 ms ± 97.6 ms [User: 328.8 ms, System: 679.2 ms] Range (min … max): 882.9 ms … 1078.0 ms 3 runs Benchmark 2: ./t5401-update-hooks.sh (rev = HEAD~) Time (mean ± σ): 9.312 s ± 0.398 s [User: 2.766 s, System: 6.617 s] Range (min … max): 8.885 s … 9.674 s 3 runs Summary ./t5401-update-hooks.sh (rev = HEAD) ran 9.47 ± 1.02 times faster than ./t5401-update-hooks.sh (rev = HEAD~) ``` Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2023-11-29 07:25:09 +00:00
printf "create refs/heads/branch_%d main\n" $(test_seq 100 999) >input &&
git update-ref --stdin <input &&
receive-pack: allow hooks to ignore its standard input stream The pre-receive and post-receive hooks were designed to be an improvement over old style update and post-update hooks, which take the update information on their command line and are limited by the command line length limit. The same information is fed from the standard input to pre/post-receive hooks instead to lift this limitation. It has been mandatory for these new style hooks to consume the update information fully from the standard input stream. Otherwise, they would risk killing the receive-pack process via SIGPIPE. If a hook does not want to look at all the information, it is easy to send its standard input to /dev/null (perhaps a niche use of hook might need to know only the fact that a push was made, without having to know what objects have been pushed to update which refs), and this has already been done by existing hooks that are written carefully. However, because there is no good way to consistently fail hooks that do not consume the input fully (a small push may result in a short update record that may fit within the pipe buffer, to which the receive-pack process may manage to write before the hook has a chance to exit without reading anything, which will not result in a death-by-SIGPIPE of receive-pack), it can lead to a hard to diagnose "once in a blue moon" phantom failure. Lift this "hooks must consume their input fully" mandate. A mandate that is not enforced strictly is not helping us to catch mistakes in hooks. If a hook has a good reason to decide the outcome of its operation without reading the information we feed it, let it do so as it pleases. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-12 22:48:07 +00:00
git push ./victim.git "+refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*"
'
Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-31 07:20:23 +00:00
test_done
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink