We have an execution path in apply_data that leaks the local struct
image. Plug it.
This leak can be triggered with:
$ echo foo >file
$ git add file && git commit -m file
$ echo bar >file
$ git diff file >diff
$ sed s/foo/frotz/ <diff >baddiff
$ git apply --cached <baddiff
Fixing this leak allows us to mark as leak-free the following tests:
+ t2016-checkout-patch.sh
+ t4103-apply-binary.sh
+ t4104-apply-boundary.sh
+ t4113-apply-ending.sh
+ t4117-apply-reject.sh
+ t4123-apply-shrink.sh
+ t4252-am-options.sh
+ t4258-am-quoted-cr.sh
Mark them with "TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true" to notice and fix
promply any new leak that may be introduced and triggered by them in the
future.
Signed-off-by: Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning
that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git".
This is useful to
- make sure the test does not fail because of a signal,
e.g. SIGSEGV, and
- advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests.
Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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>
When there is no leading context, the patch must match at the
beginning of preimage; otherwise there is a "patch adds these
lines while the other lines were added to the original file"
conflict.
This is the opposite of match_end fix earlier in this series.
Unlike matching at the end case, we can additionally check the
preimage line number recorded in the patch, so the change is not
symmetrical with the earlier one.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
git-apply adding an ending line doesn't seem to fail if the ending line is
already present in the patched file.
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>