2010-01-10 13:11:22 +00:00
|
|
|
#!/bin/sh
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
# Copyright (c) 2009 Ilari Liusvaara
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_description='Test run command'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. ./test-lib.sh
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-04-20 10:35:08 +00:00
|
|
|
cat >hello-script <<-EOF
|
|
|
|
|
#!$SHELL_PATH
|
|
|
|
|
cat hello-script
|
|
|
|
|
EOF
|
|
|
|
|
>empty
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-01-10 13:11:22 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'start_command reports ENOENT' '
|
|
|
|
|
test-run-command start-command-ENOENT ./does-not-exist
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-04-20 10:35:08 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'run_command can run a command' '
|
|
|
|
|
cat hello-script >hello.sh &&
|
|
|
|
|
chmod +x hello.sh &&
|
|
|
|
|
test-run-command run-command ./hello.sh >actual 2>err &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_cmp hello-script actual &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_cmp empty err
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_success POSIXPERM 'run_command reports EACCES' '
|
|
|
|
|
cat hello-script >hello.sh &&
|
|
|
|
|
chmod -x hello.sh &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_must_fail test-run-command run-command ./hello.sh 2>err &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
grep "fatal: cannot exec.*hello.sh" err
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
tests: correct misuses of POSIXPERM
POSIXPERM requires that a later call to stat(2) (hence "ls -l")
faithfully reproduces what an earlier chmod(2) did. Some
filesystems cannot satisify this.
SANITY requires that a file or a directory is indeed accessible (or
inaccessible) when its permission bits would say it ought to be
accessible (or inaccessible). Running tests as root would lose this
prerequisite for obvious reasons.
Fix a few tests that misuse POSIXPERM.
t0061-run-command.sh has two uses of POSIXPERM.
- One checks that an attempt to execute a file that is marked as
unexecutable results in a failure with EACCES; I do not think
having root-ness or any other capability that busts the
filesystem permission mode bits will make you run an unexecutable
file, so this should be left as-is. The test does not have
anything to do with SANITY.
- The other one expects 'git nitfol' runs the alias when an
alias.nitfol is defined and a directory on the PATH is marked as
unreadable and unsearchable. I _think_ the test tries to reject
the alternative expectation that we want to refuse to run the
alias because it would break "no alias may mask a command" rule
if a file 'git-nitfol' exists in the unreadable directory but we
cannot even determine if that is the case. Under !SANITY that
busts the permission bits, this test no longer checks that, so it
must be protected with SANITY.
t1509-root-worktree.sh expects to be run on a / that is writable by
the user and sees if Git behaves "sensibly" when /.git is the
repository to govern a worktree that is the whole filesystem, and
also if Git behaves "sensibly" when / itself is a bare repository
with refs, objects, and friends (I find the definition of "behaves
sensibly" under these conditions hard to fathom, but it is a
different matter).
The implementation of the test is very much problematic.
- It requires POSIXPERM, but it does not do chmod or checks modes
in any way.
- It runs "rm /*" and "rm -fr /refs /objects ..." in one of the
tests, and also does "cd / && git init --bare". If done on a
live system that takes advantages of the "feature" being tested,
these obviously will clobber the system. But there is no guard
against such a breakage.
- It uses "test $UID = 0" to see rootness, which now should be
spelled "! test_have_prereq NOT_ROOT"
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-01-16 18:32:09 +00:00
|
|
|
test_expect_success POSIXPERM,SANITY 'unreadable directory in PATH' '
|
2012-03-30 07:52:18 +00:00
|
|
|
mkdir local-command &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_when_finished "chmod u+rwx local-command && rm -fr local-command" &&
|
|
|
|
|
git config alias.nitfol "!echo frotz" &&
|
|
|
|
|
chmod a-rx local-command &&
|
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
|
PATH=./local-command:$PATH &&
|
|
|
|
|
git nitfol >actual
|
|
|
|
|
) &&
|
|
|
|
|
echo frotz >expect &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_cmp expect actual
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-01-10 13:11:22 +00:00
|
|
|
test_done
|