Am 22.01.22 um 01:58 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > So, taking the two earlier comments from me together... > > I _think_ I was the one who spotted the funny skip_prefix() whose > result was not used, and suggested this unrelated check, during the > review. Sorry about that. > > ----- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 ----- > > Subject: [PATCH] checkout: avoid BUG() when hitting a broken repository > > When 9081a421 (checkout: fix "branch info" memory leaks, 2021-11-16) > cleaned up existing memory leaks, we added an unrelated sanity check > to ensure that a local branch is truly local and not a symref to > elsewhere that dies with BUG() otherwise. This was misguided in two > ways. First of all, such a tightening did not belong to a leak-fix > patch. And the condition it detected was *not* a bug in our program > but a problem in user data, where warning() or die() would have been > more appropriate. > > As the condition is not fatal (the result of computing the local > branch name in the code that is involved in the faulty check is only > used as a textual label for the commit), let's revert the code to > the original state, i.e. strip "refs/heads/" to compute the local > branch name if possible, and otherwise leave it NULL. The consumer > of the information in merge_working_tree() is prepared to see NULL > in there and act accordingly. > > cf. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042920 > > Reported-by: Petr Šplíchal <psplicha@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: Todd Zullinger <tmz@xxxxxxxxx> > Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > builtin/checkout.c | 3 --- > t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh | 13 +++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c > index 43d0275187..1fb34d537d 100644 > --- a/builtin/checkout.c > +++ b/builtin/checkout.c > @@ -1094,9 +1094,6 @@ static int switch_branches(const struct checkout_opts *opts, > const char *p; > if (skip_prefix(old_branch_info.path, prefix, &p)) > old_branch_info.name = xstrdup(p); > - else > - BUG("should be able to skip past '%s' in '%s'!", > - prefix, old_branch_info.path); > } > > if (opts->new_orphan_branch && opts->orphan_from_empty_tree) { > diff --git a/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh b/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh > index 93be1c0eae..5dda5ad4cb 100755 > --- a/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh > +++ b/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh > @@ -85,6 +85,19 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' ' > git branch -m branch1 > ' > > +test_expect_success 'checkout a branch without refs/heads/* prefix' ' > + git clone --no-tags . repo-odd-prefix && > + ( > + cd repo-odd-prefix && > + > + origin=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD) && > + git symbolic-ref refs/heads/a-branch "$origin" && > + > + git checkout -f a-branch && > + git checkout -f a-branch I haven't grasped the hairy details of the circumstances regarding this issue, and are observing this thread only from the sideline. I wonder whether there is a significance that there are two identical checkout commands in a row. In particular, could the second checkout not just switch back to main? A comment in the test case would help me and future readers. > + ) > +' > + > test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch, set to HEAD' ' > test_when_finished " > git checkout branch1 && -- Hannes
