Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sequencer: pass explicit --no-gpg-sign to merge

> Samuel Čavoj <samuel@cavoj.net> writes:
> 
> > The merge subcommand launched for merges with non-default strategy would
> > use its own default behaviour to decide how to sign commits, regardless
> > of what opts->gpg_sign was set to. For example the --no-gpg-sign flag
> > given to rebase explicitly would get ignored, if commit.gpgsign was set
> > to true.
> >
> > Fix the issue and add a test case excercising this behaviour.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Čavoj <samuel@cavoj.net>
> > ---
> > v2 -> v3:
> >     - added test case
> > ---
> >  sequencer.c                | 2 ++
> >  t/t3435-rebase-gpg-sign.sh | 7 +++++++
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> > index 88ccff4838..043d606829 100644
> > --- a/sequencer.c
> > +++ b/sequencer.c
> > @@ -3678,6 +3678,8 @@ static int do_merge(struct repository *r,
> >  		strvec_push(&cmd.args, git_path_merge_msg(r));
> >  		if (opts->gpg_sign)
> >  			strvec_pushf(&cmd.args, "-S%s", opts->gpg_sign);
> > +		else
> > +			strvec_push(&cmd.args, "--no-gpg-sign");
> 
> Makes sense, I guess.  As long as opts->gpg_sign reflects not just
> the command line but also the configuration.  Otherwise, an
> invocation of "git rebase" with no gpg-sign related command line
> options would say "ah, opts->gpg_sign is false, we must have been
> told from the command line not to sign, so pass --no-gpg-sign here"
> and that is not correct.
> 
> > diff --git a/t/t3435-rebase-gpg-sign.sh b/t/t3435-rebase-gpg-sign.sh
> > index 9d2faffa03..773c2a1d72 100755
> > --- a/t/t3435-rebase-gpg-sign.sh
> > +++ b/t/t3435-rebase-gpg-sign.sh
> > @@ -81,4 +81,11 @@ test_expect_success 'rebase -r, GPG config and merge strategies' '
> >  	git verify-commit HEAD
> >  '
> >  
> > +test_expect_success 'rebase -r, --no-gpg-sign and merge strategies' '
> > +	git reset --hard merged &&
> > +	test_config commit.gpgsign true &&
> > +	git rebase -fr --no-gpg-sign -s resolve --root &&
> > +	test_must_fail git verify-commit HEAD
> > +'
> 
> I think that before this patch, we've tested the "no command line
> option, but configuration tells us to sign" combination already to
> make sure the result is signed, so this new test is sufficient.
> 
> I briefly wondered if "test_must_fail git verify-commit" sufficient
> to make sure that the rebased commits are not signed (i.e. verify
> may fail for reasons other than the commit lacks signature, like the
> commit is signed but with a wrong key, etc.), but I think it is OK
> at least for now.  Others might have clever ideas to cleanly and
> cheaply reject other kinds of failures, in which case we may want to
> adopt such a solution.
> 
> Now that we know that the root cause of the bug you fixed was
> because rebase rebase with the default merge strategy for two-head
> merges use separate codepaths from and all other rebases, I wonder
> if it is prudent to also test the same cases this series adds
> without giving "-s resolve".  That would exercise the other codepath

> that handles the default merge strategy for two-head merges.  Yes,
> we know that other codepath has been working even before this fix,
> but tests are not about showing off what we fixed, but are about
> making sure similar breakage won't be introduced by mistake in the
> future.
> 
> Thanks.