This test passes successfully with SHA-256, so remove the annotation
which limits it to SHA-1.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While a rebase is stopped for the user to edit a commit message it can
be convenient for them to also edit the todo list. The scripted version
of rebase supported this but the C version does not. We already check to
see if the todo list has been updated by an exec command so extend this
to rewords and squashes. It only costs a single stat call to do this so
it should not affect the speed of the rebase (especially as it has just
stopped for the user to edit a message)
Note that for squashes the editor may be opened on a different pick to
the squash itself as we edit the message at the end of a chain fixups
and squashes.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It is quite possible that the loose object cache gets stale when new
objects are written. In that case, get_oid() would potentially say that
it cannot find a given object, even if it should find it.
Let's blow away the loose object cache as well as the read packs and try
again in that case.
Note: this does *not* affect the code path that was introduced to help
avoid looking for the same non-existing objects (which made some
operations really expensive via NFS): that code path is handled by the
`OBJECT_INFO_QUICK` flag (which does not even apply to `get_oid()`,
which has no equivalent flag, at least at the time this patch was
written).
This incidentally fixes the problem identified earlier where an
interactive rebase wanted to re-read (and validate) the todo list after
an `exec` command modified it.
Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We specifically support `exec` commands in `git rebase -i`'s todo lists
to rewrite the very same todo list. Of course, we need to validate that
todo list when re-reading it.
It is also totally legitimate to extend the todo list by `pick` lines
using short names of commits that were created only after the rebase
started.
And this is where the loose object cache interferes with this feature:
if *some* loose object was read whose hash shares the same first two
digits with a commit that was not yet created when that loose object was
created, then we fail to find that new commit by its short name in
`get_oid()`, and the interactive rebase fails with an obscure error
message like:
error: invalid line 1: pick 6568fef
error: please fix this using 'git rebase --edit-todo'.
Let's first demonstrate that this is actually a bug in a new regression
test, in a separate commit so that other developers who do not believe
me can cherry-pick it to confirm the problem.
This new regression test generates two commits whose hashes share the
first two hex digits (so that their corresponding loose objects live in
the same subdirectory of .git/objects/, and are therefore supposed to be
in the same loose object cache bin).
It then picks the first, to make sure that the loose object cache is
initialized and cached that object directory, then generates the second
commit and picks it, too. Since the commit was generated in a different
process than the sequencer that wants to pick it, the loose object cache
had no chance of being updated in the meantime.
Technically, we would need only one `exec` command in this regression
test case, but for ease of implementation, it uses a pseudo-recursive
call to the same script.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In the scripted version of the interactive rebase, there was no internal
representation of the todo list; it was re-read before every command.
That allowed the hack that an `exec` command could append (or even
completely rewrite) the todo list.
This hack was broken by the partial conversion of the interactive rebase
to C, and this patch reinstates it.
We also add a small test to verify that this fix does not regress in the
future.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hicks <sdh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
