Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Every once in a while someone complains to the mailing list to have
> run into this weird assertion[1]. The usual response from the mailing
> list is link to old discussions[2], and acknowledging the problem
> stating it is known.
>
> This patch accomplishes two things:
>
> 1. Switch assert() to die("BUG") to give a more readable message.
>
> 2. Take one of the cases where we hit a BUG and turn it into a normal
> "there was something wrong with the input" message.
>
> This assertion triggered for cases where there wasn't a programming
> bug, but just bogus input. In particular, if the user asks for a
> pathspec that is inside a submodule, we shouldn't assert() or
> die("BUG"); we should tell the user their request is bogus.
>
Is it only me who sees funny black rectangles in front of these four
lines instead of blanks, by the way?
> This comes as a single patch again, replacing sb/pathspec-errors.
> It goes directly on top of bw/pathspec-cleanup.
>
> v7:
> do not rely on "test_commit -C" being there, nor the infrastructure
> to request a "good" submodule upstream. Just create a submodule outselves
> to test in.
>
Thanks.
> diff --git a/t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh b/t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000000..d952ae2cae
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +test_description='test case exclude pathspec'
> +
> +TEST_CREATE_SUBMODULE=yes
Did you mean to keep this?
> +. ./test-lib.sh
> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup a submodule' '
> + test_create_repo pretzel &&
> + (
> + cd pretzel &&
> + touch a &&
This is better spelled as
: >a &&
because use of touch, when you do not care about the file timestamp,
is misleading.
Thanks.