If we are expecting a command to produce a particular exit
code, we can use test_expect_code. However, some cases are
more complicated, and want to accept one of a range of exit
codes. For these, we end up with something like:
cmd;
case "$?" in
...
That unfortunately breaks the &&-chain and fools
--chain-lint. Since these special cases are so few, we can
wrap them in a block, like this:
{ cmd; ret=$?; } &&
case "$ret" in
...
This accomplishes the same thing, and retains the &&-chain
(the exit status fed to the && is that of the assignment,
which should always be true). It's technically longer, but
it is probably a good thing for unusual code like this to
stand out.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This reverts commit 10f343ea81, whose
output is no longer bit-for-bit equivalent from the older versions
of Git, which the infrastructure to (pretend to) upload tarballs
kernel.org uses depends on.
Implementations of "tar" that do not understand an extended pax
header would extract the contents of it in a regular file; make
sure the permission bits of this file follows the same tar.umask
configuration setting.
* bc/archive-pax-header-mode:
archive: honor tar.umask even for pax headers
git archive's tar format uses extended pax headers to encode metadata
into the archive. Most tar implementations correctly treat these as
metadata, but some that do not understand the pax format extract these
as files instead. Apply the tar.umask setting to these entries to
prevent tampering by other users.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
test_cmp() is primarily meant to compare text files (and display the
difference for debug purposes).
Raw "cmp" is better suited to compare binary files (tar, zip, etc.).
On MinGW, test_cmp is a shell function mingw_test_cmp that tries to
read both files into environment, stripping CR characters (introduced
in commit 4d715ac0).
This function usually speeds things up, as fork is extremly slow on
Windows. But no wonder that this function is extremely slow and
sometimes even crashes when comparing large tar or zip files.
Signed-off-by: Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Fixes tests added in 1.8.2 era that are broken on BSDs.
* rs/empty-archive:
t5004: resurrect original empty tar archive test
t5004: avoid using tar for checking emptiness of archive
Test 2 of t5004 checks if a supposedly empty tar archive really
contains no files. 24676f02 (t5004: fix issue with empty archive test
and bsdtar) removed our commit hash to make it work with bsdtar, but
the test still fails on NetBSD and OpenBSD, which use their own tar
that considers a tar file containing only NULs as broken.
Here's what the different archivers do when asked to create a tar
file without entries:
$ uname -v
NetBSD 6.0.1 (GENERIC)
$ gtar --version | head -1
tar (GNU tar) 1.26
$ bsdtar --version
bsdtar 2.8.4 - libarchive 2.8.4
$ : >zero.tar
$ perl -e 'print "\0" x 10240' >tenk.tar
$ sha1 zero.tar tenk.tar
SHA1 (zero.tar) = da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709
SHA1 (tenk.tar) = 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c
$ : | tar cf - -T - | sha1
da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709
$ : | gtar cf - -T - | sha1
34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c
$ : | bsdtar cf - -T - | sha1
34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c
So NetBSD's native tar creates an empty file, while GNU tar and bsdtar
both give us 10KB of NULs -- just like git archive with an empty tree.
Now let's see how the archivers handle these two kinds of empty tar
files:
$ tar tf zero.tar; echo $?
tar: Unexpected EOF on archive file
1
$ gtar tf zero.tar; echo $?
gtar: This does not look like a tar archive
gtar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors
2
$ bsdtar tf zero.tar; echo $?
0
$ tar tf tenk.tar; echo $?
tar: Cannot identify format. Searching...
tar: End of archive volume 1 reached
tar: Sorry, unable to determine archive format.
1
$ gtar tf tenk.tar; echo $?
0
$ bsdtar tf tenk.tar; echo $?
0
NetBSD's tar complains about both, bsdtar happily accepts any of them
and GNU tar doesn't like zero-length archive files. So the safest
course of action is to stay with our block-of-NULs format which is
compatible with GNU tar and bsdtar, as we can't make NetBSD's native
tar happy anyway.
We can simplify our test, however, by taking tar out of the picture.
Instead of extracting the archive and checking for the non-presence of
files, check if the file has a size of 10KB and contains only NULs.
This makes t5004 pass on NetBSD and OpenBSD.
Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add a test to verify the emptiness of an archive by extracting its
contents. Don't run this test if the version of tar doesn't support
archives containing only a comment header, though.
The existing check 'tar archive of empty tree is empty' used to work
like that (minus the tar capability check) but was changed to depend
on the exact representation of empty tar files created by git archive
instead of on the behaviour of tar in order to avoid issues with
different tar versions.
The different approaches test different things: The existing one is
for empty trees, for which we know the exact expected output and thus
we can simply check it without extracting; the new one is for commits
with empty trees, whose archives include stamps and so the more
"natural" check by extraction is a better fit because it focuses on
the interesting aspect, namely the absence of any archive entries.
Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Test 2 of t5004 checks if a supposedly empty tar archive really
contains no files. 24676f02 (t5004: fix issue with empty archive test
and bsdtar) removed our commit hash to make it work with bsdtar, but
the test still fails on NetBSD and OpenBSD, which use their own tar
that considers a tar file containing only NULs as broken.
Here's what the different archivers do when asked to create a tar
file without entries:
$ uname -v
NetBSD 6.0.1 (GENERIC)
$ gtar --version | head -1
tar (GNU tar) 1.26
$ bsdtar --version
bsdtar 2.8.4 - libarchive 2.8.4
$ : >zero.tar
$ perl -e 'print "\0" x 10240' >tenk.tar
$ sha1 zero.tar tenk.tar
SHA1 (zero.tar) = da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709
SHA1 (tenk.tar) = 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c
$ : | tar cf - -T - | sha1
da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709
$ : | gtar cf - -T - | sha1
34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c
$ : | bsdtar cf - -T - | sha1
34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c
So NetBSD's native tar creates an empty file, while GNU tar and bsdtar
both give us 10KB of NULs -- just like git archive with an empty tree.
Now let's see how the archivers handle these two kinds of empty tar
files:
$ tar tf zero.tar; echo $?
tar: Unexpected EOF on archive file
1
$ gtar tf zero.tar; echo $?
gtar: This does not look like a tar archive
gtar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors
2
$ bsdtar tf zero.tar; echo $?
0
$ tar tf tenk.tar; echo $?
tar: Cannot identify format. Searching...
tar: End of archive volume 1 reached
tar: Sorry, unable to determine archive format.
$ gtar tf tenk.tar; echo $?
0
$ bsdtar tf tenk.tar; echo $?
0
NetBSD's tar complains about both, bsdtar happily accepts any of them
and GNU tar doesn't like zero-length archive files. So the safest
course of action is to stay with our block-of-NULs format which is
compatible with GNU tar and bsdtar, as we can't make NetBSD's native
tar happy anyway.
We can simplify our test, however, by taking tar out of the picture.
Instead of extracting the archive and checking for the non-presence of
files, check if the file has a size of 10KB and contains only NULs.
This makes t5004 pass on NetBSD and OpenBSD.
Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Versions of tar that don't know pax headers -- like the ones in NetBSD 6
and OpenBSD 5.2 -- extract them as regular files. Explicitly ignore the
file created for our global header when checking the list of extracted
files, as this is normal and harmless fall-back behaviour. This fixes
test 3 of t5004 on these platforms.
Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
bsdtar, which is the default tar on Mac OS X, handles empty archives
just fine but reports archives containing only a pax extended header
comment as damaged. Work around the issue by explicitly generating
the archive for the tree and not the commit, which causes git archive
to omit the commit hash comment record from the tar file.
Reported-by: BJ Hargrave <bj@bjhargrave.com>
Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
git-archive relies on get_pathspec to convert its argv into
a list of pathspecs. When get_pathspec is given an empty
argv list, it returns a single pathspec, the empty string,
to indicate that everything matches. When we feed this to
our path_exists function, we typically see that the pathspec
turns up at least one item in the tree, and we are happy.
But when our tree is empty, we erroneously think it is
because the pathspec is too limited, when in fact it is
simply that there is nothing to be found in the tree. This
is a weird corner case, but the correct behavior is almost
certainly to produce an empty archive, not to exit with an
error.
This patch teaches git-archive to create empty archives when
there is no pathspec given (we continue to complain if a
pathspec is given, since it obviously is not matched). It
also confirms that the tar and zip writers produce sane
output in this instance.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
