Hi Christian, On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, Christian Couder wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:26 PM Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020, Miriam R. wrote: > > > > > > > Applying some of your suggestions related to removing some 'eval' in > > > > git-bisect shell script, a bug has appeared. It seems it is related to > > > > a previous code merged before my internship. > > > > > > Now you got me curious: what bug did you see? > > > > I found your fork and ran the test, and this is the first symptom: > > > > -- snip -- > > [...] > > ++ git bisect skip > > Bisecting: 1 revision left to test after this (roughly 1 step) > > [32a594a3fdac2d57cf6d02987e30eec68511498c] Add <4: Ciao for now> into <hello>. > > ++ git bisect good > > ++ grep '3082e11d3a0f2edca194c8ce1eb802256e38e75e is the first bad commit' my_bisect_log.txt > > 3082e11d3a0f2edca194c8ce1eb802256e38e75e is the first bad commit > > ++ git bisect log > > ++ git bisect reset > > Previous HEAD position was 32a594a Add <4: Ciao for now> into <hello>. > > Switched to branch 'other' > > ok 22 - bisect skip: add line and then a new test > > > > expecting success of 6030.23 'bisect skip and bisect replay': > > git bisect replay log_to_replay.txt > my_bisect_log.txt && > > grep "$HASH5 is the first bad commit" my_bisect_log.txt && > > git bisect reset > > > > ++ git bisect replay log_to_replay.txt > > error: update_ref failed for ref 'refs/bisect/bad': cannot update ref 'refs/bisect/bad': trying to write ref 'refs/bisect/bad' with nonexistent object 10006d020000000068986d020000000054f65f00 > > error: last command exited with $?=1 > > not ok 23 - bisect skip and bisect replay > > # > > # git bisect replay log_to_replay.txt > my_bisect_log.txt && > > # grep "$HASH5 is the first bad commit" my_bisect_log.txt && > > # git bisect reset > > -- snap -- > > > > So I dug a little bit further (and applied Christian's patch in the > > meantime), and it turns out that the `eval` has nothing to do with what I > > originally thought it would be required for: I thought that it wanted to > > prevent `exit` calls from actually exiting the script. > > > > Instead, those `eval` calls are required because the arguments are > > provided in quoted form. For example, during the execution of t6030.68, > > the `eval` would expand the call > > > > eval "git bisect--helper --bisect-start $rev $tail" > > > > to > > > > git bisect--helper --bisect-start '--term-old' 'term2' '--term-new' 'term1' > > Yeah, that was also what I found (along with the bug I sent a patch for). I suspected that you had found that out, but I really wanted a record on the Git mailing list about our findings. It might be a good idea to add a paragraph to the respective patches, along these lines: Note that the `eval` in the changed line of `git-bisect.sh` cannot be dropped: it is necessary because the `rev` and the `tail` variables may contain multiple, quoted arguments that need to be passed to `bisect--helper` (without the quotes, naturally). > > Therefore, the `eval` really needs to stay in place (also the other `eval` > > I had originally suggested to remove, for the same reason). > > > > I would still recommend appending `|| exit`, even if it just so happens > > that we will eventually abort when the `bisect--helper` command failed > > anyway, because the next command will then fail, and abort. But it's > > cleaner to abort already when this invocation failed rather than relying > > on that side effect. > > Yeah, I think it's a good solution. Excellent. I think we can actually move forward with the entire patch series now, not just the first subset, right? Ciao, Dscho
