Hi Ævar
On 03/06/2022 10:20, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03 2022, Phillip Wood wrote:
Hi Ævar
On 02/06/2022 15:07, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
This series fixes a v2.36.0 regression[1]. See [2] for the v4. The
reasons for why a regression needs this relatively large change to
move forward is discussed in past rounds, e.g. around [3]. CI at
https://github.com/avar/git/actions/runs/2428475773
Changes since v4, mainly to address comments by Johannes (thanks for
the review!):
* First, some things like renaming "ungroup" to something else &
rewriting the tests I didn't do because I thought keeping the
inter/range-diff down in size outweighed re-arranging or changing
the code at this late stage.
In the case of the suggested shorter test in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2206011827300.349@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
the replacement wasn't testing the same thing. I.e. we don't see
what's connected to a TTY if we redirect one of stdout or stderr
anymore, which is important to get right.
I'm a bit confused by this, the proposed test uses this hook script
write_script .git/hooks/pre-commit <<-EOF
test -t 1 && echo "stdout is a TTY" >out
test -t 2 && echo "stderr is a TTY" >>out
EOF
if either of stderr or stdout is redirected then the corresponding
"test -t" should fail and so we will detect that it is not a tty.
Yes, exactly, but the proposed test doesn't test that, in that case both
of them are connected, the test in 2/2 does test that case.
I think I must be missing something. As I understand it we want to check
that the hook can see a tty on stdout and stderr. In the test above
we'll get a line printed for each fd that is a tty. Your test always
redirects one of stdout and stderr - why is it important to test that? -
it feels like it is testing the shell's redirection code rather than git.
I was concerned that we had also regressed the handling of stdin but
looking at (the now deleted) run_hook_ve() it used to set .no_stdin = 1
so that is unchanged in the new code.
Best Wishes
Phillip
Can that snippet bebe made to work? Sure, but I know the test I have
works, and that proposed replacement didn't even pass chainlint
(i.e. hasn't been run even once in our test suite). So I didn't think
that trying to micro-optimize the test length was worth it in this case.
It's also getting much of that length reduction e.g. by not cleaning up
after itself, which the test in 2/2 does.
