The final test in t7510 checks that "--format" placeholders
that look similar to GPG placeholders (but that we don't
actually understand) are passed through. That test was
placed in t7510, since the other GPG placeholder tests are
there. However, it does not have a GPG prerequisite, because
it is not actually checking any signed commits.
This causes the test to erroneously fail when gpg is not
installed on a system, however. Not because we need signed
commits, but because we need _any_ commit to run "git log".
If we don't have gpg installed, t7510 doesn't create any
commits at all.
We can fix this by moving the test into t6006. This is
arguably a better place anyway, because it is where we test
most of the other placeholders (we do not test GPG
placeholders there because of the infrastructure needed to
make signed commits).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If the user asks for --format=%G with nothing else, we
correctly realize that "%G" is not a valid placeholder (it
should be "%G?", "%GK", etc). But we still tell the
strbuf_expand code that we consumed 2 characters, causing it
to jump over the trailing NUL and output garbage.
This also fixes the case where "%GX" would be consumed (and
produce no output). In other cases, we pass unrecognized
placeholders through to the final string.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We do not check these along with the other pretty-format
placeholders in t6006, because we need signed commits to
make them interesting. t7510 has such commits, and can
easily exercise them in addition to the regular
--show-signature code path.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We tested both good and bad signatures, but not ones made
correctly but with a key for which we have no trust.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We check multiple commits in a loop. Because we want to
break out of the loop if any single iteration fails, we use
a subshell/exit like:
(
for i in $stuff
do
do-something $i || exit 1
done
)
However, we are inconsistent in our loop body. Some commands
get their own "|| exit 1", and others try to chain to the
next command with "&&", like:
X &&
Y || exit 1
Z || exit 1
This is a little hard to read and follow, because X and Y
are treated differently for no good reason. But much worse,
the second loop follows a similar pattern and gets it wrong.
"Y" is expected to fail, so we use "&& exit 1", giving us:
X &&
Y && exit 1
Z || exit 1
That gets the test for X wrong (we do not exit unless both X
fails and Y unexpectedly succeeds, but we would want to exit
if _either_ is wrong). We can write this clearly and
correctly by consistently using "&&", followed by a single
"|| exit 1", and negating Y with "!" (as we would in a
normal &&-chain). Like:
X &&
! Y &&
Z || exit 1
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Our setup creates a sequence of commits, each with its own
tag. However, we sometimes refer to "seventh-signed" as
"master". This works, since it is at the tip of the created
branch, but is brittle if new tests need to add more
commits. Let's use its tag name to be unambiguous.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The tests are checking that :
- when commit.gpgsign is true, "git commit" creates signed commits
- when commit.gpgsign is false, "git commit" creates unsigned commits
- when commit.gpgsign is true, "git commit --no-gpg-sign" creates
unsigned commits
- when commit.gpgsign is true, "git rebase -f" creates signed commits
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Vigier <boklm@mars-attacks.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Any existing commit signature was made against the contents of the old
commit, including its committer date that is about to change, and will
become invalid by amending it.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
