On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:29:26PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > The issue comes from this test code: > > ( > sane_unset GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL && > GIT_AUTHOR_NAME= && > test_must_fail git commit --allow-empty -m foo 2>err && > test_i18ngrep ! null err > ) > > The last line expects 'null' to NOT be found in err, unfortunately, > the file err contained the line: > > fatal: empty ident name (for > <runner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) > not allowed > 218 > > Note that 'null' appears as a substring of the domain name, found > within 'gcliasfzo2nullsdbrimjtbyhg'. Heh. That's an amusing find. Good detective work, and sorry I created the problem. > +# confirm that we do not segfault _and_ that we do not say "(null)", as > +# glibc systems will quietly handle our NULL pointer > > Should we tighten the test to check for "(null)" instead of "null", or > should we do something else? Or just ignore it as it is somewhat > unlikely that anyone ever hits this flake again? I think it's worth tightening the test. The "(null)" phrasing is pretty common, and it's really the best we can do. The chance that somebody is on a platform that neither segfaults not prints "(null)", _and_ that they introduce a regression there seems pretty low. And in comparison, you already wasted time tracking down a false negative. Let's make sure that doesn't happen again. I wish there was an environment variable or something we could set in the test suite to convince glibc to actually segfault on NULL (because it _will_ segfault on other platforms, and we're rather catch such things sooner rather than later). Another option, I guess, is that we probably _do_ run the tests on such a platform (IIRC BSD will segfault, so macos probably does). So we could just remove the grep entirely from this test and let any regression get caught there. Of the two, I think I have a slight preference for matching (null), but I don't feel strongly. -Peff
