Re: [PATCH] hook API: don't segfault on strbuf_addf() to NULL "out"
- From
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 5, 2022, 15:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <220805.86v8r6r8in.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <Yu08MCCoGwTxeM+g@danh.dev>
On Fri, Aug 05 2022, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote:
Show 31 quoted lines
> On 2022-08-05 16:15:33+0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] >> +test_expect_success 'git hook run a hook with a bad shebang' ' >> + test_when_finished "rm -rf bad-hooks" && >> + mkdir bad-hooks && >> + write_script bad-hooks/test-hook "/bad/path/no/spaces" </dev/null && >> + >> + # TODO: We should emit the same (or at least a more similar) >> + # error on Windows and !Windows. See the OS-specific code in >> + # start_command() >> + if test_have_prereq !WINDOWS >> + then >> + cat >expect <<-\EOF >> + fatal: cannot run bad-hooks/test-hook: ... >> + EOF >> + else >> + cat >expect <<-\EOF >> + error: cannot spawn bad-hooks/test-hook: ... >> + EOF >> + fi && >> + test_expect_code 1 git \ >> + -c core.hooksPath=bad-hooks \ >> + hook run test-hook >out 2>err && >> + test_must_be_empty out && >> + sed -e "s/test-hook: .*/test-hook: .../" <err >actual && > > If we're using "sed" here, can we also s/cannot run/cannot spawn/ > in order to have the same expectation? > > Otherwise, the fix looks sane to me (obviously, since I also suggest > removing the line entirely).
We could, but then we'd miss some weird regression where we changed the non-Windows message to "fatal: cannot spawn", which neither emit now.
We could of course do the "sed"-ing in an identical "test_have_prereq" block, but I think we'd just be back to square one then, and it would be more readable to just "cat" what we expect to happen there.
So I think I'd prefer to keep it as-is, it also makes a subsequent change where we unify these error messages more obvious, i.e. we'd keep the !WINDOWS branch of that if/else in thath case.
> Reviewed-by: Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@gmail.com>
Thanks!