This is my project proposal for the Google Summer of Code 2024 program. The document version of this proposal can be accessed through this link: https://shorturl.at/ijrTU ---------<8----------<8----------<8----------<8----------<8----------<8 Personal Info ------------- Full name: Chandra Pratap Preferred name: Chand E-mail: chandrapratap3519@xxxxxxxxx Phone: (+91)77618-24030 Education: SV National Institute of Technology, Surat, India Year: Sophomore (2nd) Major: Mathematics GitHub: https://github.com/Chand-ra Before GSoC ----------- -----Synopsis----- A new unit testing framework was introduced to the Git mailing list last year with the aim of simplifying testing and improving maintainability. The idea was accepted and merged into master on 09/11/2023. This project aims to extend that work by moving more tests from the current setup to the new unit testing framework. The SoC 2024 Ideas page (link: https://git.github.io/SoC-2019-Ideas/) mentions reftable unit tests migration as a separate project from the general unit test migration project, however, I propose migrating other tests alongside the reftable unit tests as a part of this proposal. The reasoning behind this is explained further down. The difficulty for the project should be medium and it should take somewhat between 175 to 350 hours. -----Contributions----- • apply.c: make git apply respect core.fileMode settings -> Status: merged into master -> link: https://public-inbox.org/git/20231226233218.472054-1-gitster@xxxxxxxxx/ -> Description: When applying a patch that adds an executable file, git apply ignores the core.fileMode setting (core.fileMode specifies whether the executable bit on files in the working tree are to be honored or not) resulting in false warnings. Fix this by inferring the correct file mode from the existing index entry when core.filemode is set to false. Add a test case that verifies the change and prevents future regression. -> Remarks: This was the first patch I worked on as a contributor to Git. Served me as an essential intro lesson to the community’s working flow and general practices. • tests: Move t0009-prio-queue.sh to the unit testing framework -> Status: merged into master -> link: https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.1642.v4.git.1705865326185.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ -> Description: t/t0009-prio-queue.sh along with t/helper/test-prio-queue.c unit test Git's implementation of a priority queue. Migrate the test over to the new unit testing framework to simplify debugging and reduce test run-time. -> Remarks: Perhaps the most relevant patch of all the ones mentioned here, this patch helped me understand the expectations and workflow for the work to be performed in this project. • write-or-die: make GIT_FLUSH a Boolean environment variable -> Status: merged into master -> link: https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.1628.v3.git.1704363617842.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ -> Description: Among Git's environment variable, the ones marked as "Boolean" accept values like Boolean configuration variables, i.e. values like 'yes', 'on', 'true' and positive numbers are taken as "on" and values like 'no', 'off','false' are taken as "off". Make GIT_FLUSH accept more values besides '0' and '1' by turning it into a Boolean environment variable & update the related documentation. • sideband.c: remoye redundant NEEDSWORK tag -> Status: merged into master -> link: https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.1625.v4.git.1703750460527.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ -> Description: Replace a misleading NEEDSWORK tag in sideband.c that reads ‘replace int with size_t’ with another comment explaining why it is fine to use ‘int’ and the replacement isn’t necessary. • make tig callable from PowerShell/Command Prompt -> Status: merged into main -> link: https://github.com/git-for-windows/MINGW-packages/pull/104 -> Description: Tig is a text mode interface for Git that ships with the standard Git for Windows package but isn’t callable from PowerShell/ Command Prompt by default. Fix this by updating the relevant Makefiles and resource scripts. • fix broken link on Git for Windows’ GitHub wiki -> Status: merged -> link: https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/wiki/Home/_history -> Remarks: A simple fix for a broken link that I stumbled upon while browsing Git for Windows’ wiki looking for some help with the patch mentioned just before this one. • t4129: prevent loss of exit codes due to the use of pipes -> Status: merged into master -> link: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220311132141.1817-1-shaoxuan.yuan02@xxxxxxxxx/ -> Description: Piping the output of git commands like git-ls-files to another command (grep in this case) in t4129 hides the exit code returned by these commands. Prevent this by storing the output of git-ls-files to a temporary file and then "grep-ping" from that file. Replace grep with test_grep as the latter is more verbose when it fails. • t9146: replace test -d/-f with appropriate test_path_is_* function -> Status: merged into master -> link: https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.1661.v3.git.1707933048210.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ -> Description: The helper functions test_path_is_* provide better debugging information than test -d/-e/-f. Replace tests -d/-e/-f with their respective ‘test_path_is_foo’ calls. • regex: update relevant files in compat/regex -> Status: WIP -> link: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1641 -> Description: The RegEx code in compat/regex has been vendored from gawk and was last updated in 2010. This may lead to performance issues like high CPU usage. Fix this by synchronizing the relevant files in compat/regex with the latest version from GNULib and then replaying any changes we made to gawk’s version on top of the new files. -> Remarks: When I started working on this patch, I thought it was an easy fix but the work turned out to be more involved than I anticipated. I had to seek help from the other community members, and we have made some good progress, but there is still a lot of cleaning and changes that need to be done. I haven’t found enough time to commit to this again, but it’s surely something that I want to get done soon. • tests: Move t0032-reftable-unittest.sh to the unit testing framework -> Status: WIP -> link: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1698 -> Description: t/t0032-reftable-unittest.sh along with t/helper/test-reftable.c unit test Git’s reftable framework. Migrate the test over to the new unit testing framework to simplify debugging and reduce test run-time. -> Remarks: An infant version as of now, I tinkered with this after seeing the project list on 'Git SoC 2024 Ideas' page to get an idea of the kind of work that will be involved in this project. -----Related Work----- Prior works about the idea have been performed by other community members and previous interns which form a good guiding path for my own approach. Some previous example work: i) Port helper/test-ctype.c to unit-tests/t-ctype.c -> link: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240112102743.1440-1-ach.lumap@xxxxxxxxx/ ii) Port test-sha256.c and test-sha1.c to unit-tests/t-hash.c -> link: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240229054004.3807-2-ach.lumap@xxxxxxxxx/ iii) Port helper/test-date.c to unit-tests/t-date.c -> link: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240205162506.1835-2-ach.lumap@xxxxxxxxx/ iv) Port test-strcmp-offset.c to unit-tests/t-strcmp-offset.c -> link: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240310144819.4379-1-ach.lumap@xxxxxxxxx/ v) Integrate a simple strbuf unit test with Git's Makefiles -> link: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20230517-unit-tests-v2-v2-4-21b5b60f4b32@xxxxxxxxxx/ vi) t0080: turn t-basic unit test into a helper -> link: https://lore.kernel.org/git/a9f67ed703c8314f0f0507ffb83b503717b846b3.1705443632.git.steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx/ In GSoC ------- -----Plan----- -> Reftable tests: The reftable tests are different from other tests in the test directory because they perform unit testing with the help of a custom test framework rather than the usual ‘helper file + shell script’ combination. Reftable tests do have a helper file and a shell script invoking the helper file, but rather than performing the tests, this combination is used to invoke tests defined in the reftable directory. The reftable directory consists of nine tests: • basics test • record test • block test • tree test • pq test • stack test • merged test • refname test • read-write test Each of these tests is written in C using a custom reftable testing framework defined by reftable/test_framework (also written in C). The framework has four major features utilized in performing the tests: • EXPECT_ERR(c): A function-like macro that takes as input an integer ‘c’ (generally the return value of a function call), compares it against 0 and spits an error message if equality doesn’t hold. The error message itself contains information about the file where this macro was used, the line in this file where the macro was called and the error code ‘c’ causing the error. • EXPECT_STREQ(a, b): A function-like macro that takes as input two strings ‘a’ and ‘b’, compares them for equality via strcmp() and throws an error if equality doesn’t hold. The error message thrown contains information regarding the file where this macro was invoked, the line in this file where the macro was called and the mismatched strings ‘a’ and ‘b’. • EXPECT(c): A function-like macro that takes as input an integer ‘c’ (generally the result of a Boolean expression like a == b) and throws an error message if c == 0. The error message is similar to EXPECT_ERR(c). • RUN_TEST(f): A function-like macro that takes as input the name of a function ‘f’ (a test function that exercises a part of reftable’s code), prints to stdout the message ‘running f’ and then calls the function with f(). Other than these, the framework consists of two additional functions, set_test_hash() and strbuf_add_void() which are used exclusively in the stack tests and refname tests respectively. Since the reftable test framework is written in C like the unit testing framework, we can create a direct translation of the features mentioned above using the existing tools in the unit testing framework with the following plan: • EXPECT_ERR(c): Can be replaced by check(!c) or check_int(c, “==”, 0). • EXPECT_STREQ(a, b): Can be replaced by check_str(a, b). • EXPECT(c): Can be replaced by check_int(), similar to EXPECT_ERR. E.g. expect(a >= b) --> check_int(a, “>=”, b) • RUN_TEST(f): Can be replaced by TEST(f(), “message explaining the test”). The information contained in the diagnostic messages of these macros is replicated in the unit testing framework by default. Any additional information can be displayed using the test_msg() functionality in the framework. The additional functions set_test_hash() and strbuf_add_void() may be moved to the source files for stack and refname respectively. The plan itself is basic and might need some modifications, but using the above plan, I have already created a working albeit primitive copy for two out of the nine tests (basics test and tree test) as can be seen here: (link: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1698) -> Other tests: As is already mentioned, the rest of the tests in the test directory use the combination of a helper file (written in C) and a shell script that invokes the said helper file. I will use my work from the patch ‘tests: Move t0009-prio-queue.sh to the unit testing framework’ (link: https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.1642.v4.git.1705865326185.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/) to explain the steps involved in the porting of such tests: • Search for a suitable test to port: As Christian Couder mentioned in this mail (link: https://public-inbox.org/git/CAP8UFD22EpdBU8HJqFM+=75EBABOTf5a0q+KsbzLK+XTEGSkPw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/), there exists a subset of t/helper worth porting and we need some sort of classification to discern these. All helper files contain a cmd__foo() function which acts as the entry point for that helper tool. For example, the helper/test-prio-queue.c file contained cmd__prio_queue() which served as the entry point for the prio-queue tool. This function is then mapped to a different name by helper/test-tool.c which is used by the ‘*.sh’ files to perform tests. Continuing the prior example, cmd__prio_queue() had been mapped to “prio-queue” by test-tool.c and t0009-prio-queue.sh invoked it like “prio-queue 1 2 get 3 dump”. To classify what among t/helper should be targeted first in this project we can use something like ‘git grep foo’ (where foo is the alias for cmd__foo()) to look at the instances where the helper tool is invoked. The ones appearing lesser in different test scripts are the ones most likely to be used solely for unit testing and should probably be targeted first. Utilising this strategy, I discovered that the ‘prio-queue’ tool was only used in t0009-prio-queue.sh and hence, was a good candidate for the unit testing framework. Note that this strategy is not full-proof and further investigation is absolutely required on a per-test basis, it is only meant to give an initial idea of what’s worth investigating. • Create a new C test file in t/unit-tests: After finding a test appropriate for the migration efforts, we create a new ‘*.c’ file in t/unit-tests. The test file must be named appropriately to reflect the nature of the tests it is supposed to perform. Most of the times, replacing ‘tXXXX’ with ‘t-‘ and ‘*.sh’ with ‘.c’ in the name of the test script suffices. E.g. t/t0009-prio-queue.sh turns to t/unit-tests/t-prio-queue.c. The new C file must #include “test-lib.h” (to be able to use the unit testing framework) and other necessary headers files. • Move the code from the helper file: Since the helper files are written in C, this step is mostly a ‘copy-paste then rename’ job. Changes similar to the following also need to be made in the Makefile: - TEST_BUILTINS_OBJS += test-prio-queue.o + UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS += t-prio-queue • Translate the shell script: The trickiest part of the plan, since different test scripts perform various functions, and a direct translation of the scripts to C is not always optimal. Continuing the prior example, t0009-prio-queue.sh used a single pattern for testing, write expected output to a temporary file (named ‘expect’) -> feed input to the ‘prio-queue’ helper tool -> dump its output to another temporary file (named ‘actual’) -> compare the two files (‘actual’ vs ‘expect’). In the first iteration of my prio-queue patch, I worked out a straightforward translation of this pattern in C. I stored the input in a string buffer, passed that buffer to the test function and stored its output in another buffer, and then called memcmp() on these two buffers. While this did prove to be a working copy, this work was found to be inadequate on the mailing list. Through the next several iterations, I reworked the logic several times, like comparing the input and output on-the-go rather than using buffers and replacing strings with macro definitions. The test scripts similarly perform other functions like checking for prerequisites, creating commits, initializing repositories, changing or creating directories and so forth, and custom logic is required in most of the cases of translating these, as seen above. • Run the resulting test, correct any errors: It is rare for any migrated test to work correctly on the first run. This step involves resolving any compile/runtime errors arising from the test and making sure that at the very minimum, all the test-cases of the original test are replicated in the new work. Improvements upon the original can also be made, for example, the original t0009-prio-queue.sh did not exercise the reverse stack functionality of prio-queue, which I improved upon in unit-tests/t-prio-queue. • Send the resulting patch to the mailing list, respond to the feedback: This step involves writing a meaningful commit message explaining each patch in the series. From my experience contributing to the Git project, I find it to be rare for any patch series to be accepted in the very first iteration. Feedback from the community is vital for the refinement of any patch and must be addressed by performing the suggested changes and sending the work back to the mailing list. This must be repeated until the work is merged into ‘seen’, ‘next’ and further down, ‘master’. Timeline -------- I’m confident that I can start the project as early as the start of the Community Bonding Period (May 1 - 26). This is because I have read the related documentation and already have some experience with the idea. I believe I’ll be ready to get up to speed to work on the project by then. The exact time arrangement for each test is variable and hard to determine, but judging from the fact that it took me 3-4 days to complete the first iteration of the t-prio-queue work, here is a proposed migration schedule: • Reftable tests: If my current work from 'tests: Move t0032-reftable-unittest.sh to the unit testing framework' is found satisfactory, there are 7 tests left that need to be ported to the unit testing framework. Assuming it takes 2-3 days to port one test, I should be done with the first patch series for the reftable tests in about 2-3 weeks. From there, it’s a matter of responding to the feedback from the mailing list, which can deceptively take longer than expected. For instance, I had to continue polishing my t-prio-queue patch for about two weeks after the feedback on the first iteration. • Other tests: The time required to port these tests is highly variable and depends mostly upon the work required in translating the shell script. As mentioned previously, it took me 3-4 days to complete the first iteration of the test-prio-queue migration patch, and that was a short test with only about 50 or so lines of shell scripting and all the test cases following a single pattern. Considering all this, I believe it should be possible, on average, to migrate a new test in 5-8 days. Hence, it should be possible for me to migrate >=7 tests along with the reftable tests throughout the duration of this project. Availability ------------ My summertime is reserved for GSoC, so I expect that I can work on a new test 5 days per week, 6-8 hours per day, that is 30-40 hours a week. On the weekends, I would like to solely work on the feedback from the mailing list and advance my [WIP] patches. Certainly, something unexpected may arise, but I will try my best to adhere to this time commitment and be always available through the community’s mailing list. Post GSoC & Closing Remarks --------------------------- When I first started contributing to the Git project in October of 2023, I had no idea about programmes like GSoC. I was advised by a senior of mine to contribute to open-source projects and hence, my aim of contribution was to apply what I had learnt in college to solve real-world problems and learn from more experienced peers. However, most of what I have contributed to Git has been trivial owing to my lack of skills and inexperience with the project. Seeing how I need to do an internship in summer, with GSoC, I hope to be able to dedicate this internship time and effort to a cool project like Git while simultaneously learning skills to be able to make more useful contributions in the future. It’s two birds with one stone. I would also like to keep working on this project to see it to completion post-GSoC and help mentor other newcomers get started with the Git project. Thanks & Regards, Chandra
