Re: [PATCH] t1410: fix breakage on case-insensitive filesystems
- From
Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
- Date
- Nov 13, 2014, 08:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <546470D0.3080809@kdbg.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20141112215923.GB6801@peff.net>
Am 12.11.2014 22:59, schrieb Jeff King:
Show 76 quoted lines
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:20:22PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>
>> Am 09.11.2014 um 02:59 schrieb Jeff King:
>>> test_expect_success 'stale dirs do not cause d/f conflicts (reflogs off)' '
>>> - test_when_finished "git branch -d a || git branch -d a/b" &&
>>> + test_when_finished "git branch -d one || git branch -d one/two" &&
>>>
>>> - git branch a/b master &&
>>> - echo "a/b@{0} branch: Created from master" >expect &&
>>> - git log -g --format="%gd %gs" a/b >actual &&
>>> + git branch one/two master &&
>>> + echo "one/two@{0} branch: Created from master" >expect &&
>>> + git log -g --format="%gd %gs" one/two >actual &&
>>> test_cmp expect actual &&
>>> - git branch -d a/b &&
>>> + git branch -d one/two &&
>>>
>>> - # same as before, but we only create a reflog for "a" if
>>> + # same as before, but we only create a reflog for "one" if
>>> # it already exists, which it does not
>>> - git -c core.logallrefupdates=false branch a master &&
>>> + git -c core.logallrefupdates=false branch one master &&
>>> : >expect &&
>>> - git log -g --format="%gd %gs" a >actual &&
>>> + git log -g --format="%gd %gs" one >actual &&
>>> test_cmp expect actual
>>> '
>>>
>>
>> On Linux I observe
>>
>> Deleted branch one/two (was b60a214).
>> warning: unable to unlink .git/logs/refs/heads/one: Is a directory
>> Deleted branch one (was b60a214).
>> ok 15 - stale dirs do not cause d/f conflicts (reflogs off)
>>
>> (notice the warning)
>
> Yes, this is expected. The warning actually comes from the "git branch
> -d" run during cleanup. Branch "one" exists but has no reflog. Instead
> there is a crufty dir call "logs/refs/heads/one". The deletion process
> blindly calls "unlink" on it and complains when it fails for reasons
> other than ENOENT.
>
> We could suppress that warning, but I didn't think it was really worth
> the bother. This is such a funny setup (reflogs on, then off, then on,
> _and_ a d/f conflict in the branches) that I doubt it will come up much.
>
> I seem to recall that ancient versions of SunOS used to do bad things
> when you called "unlink" on a directory, but I do not know if that is
> still the case (I also would doubt this is the only place in git where
> we blindly do an "unlink if you can" without actually checking the file.
>
>> but on Windows the test fails with
>>
>> Deleted branch one/two (was b60a214).
>> error: Unable to append to .git/logs/refs/heads/one: Permission denied
>> fatal: Cannot update the ref 'refs/heads/one'.
>> not ok 15 - stale dirs do not cause d/f conflicts (reflogs off)
>
> That looks more like it is failing the actual test (i.e., the creation
> of branch "one" when there is cruft in the reflog). My guess is that
> calling open() on a directory is giving us EACCES instead of EISDIR. Can
> you verify that?
>
> If that is the case, then this isn't a new breakage, I think, but just
> code we weren't previously exercising. It would be interesting to know
> whether:
>
> git config core.logallrefupdates true
> git branch one/two
> git branch -d one/two
> git branch one
>
> works (even without my patch). If so, then there's probably something
> else going on.Don't know what you mean with "my patch" (the one I was responding to touches only t1410). But the sequence works as expected with a version built in September:
C:\Temp\gittest>git init Initialized empty Git repository in C:/Temp/gittest/.git/
C:\Temp\gittest>git commit --allow-empty -m init [master (root-commit) 2e78994] init
C:\Temp\gittest>git branch one/two
C:\Temp\gittest>git branch -d one/two Deleted branch one/two (was 2e78994).
C:\Temp\gittest>git branch one
C:\Temp\gittest>git version git version 2.1.0.rc2.1268.g12ef091
> The relevant bits are in log_ref_setup. We try to open() once, and > accept EISDIR as a hint that we may need to remove an empty directory > and try again. If Windows gives us EACCES, then we may need to have that > trigger the same code.
Thanks, that is a starting point.
-- Hannes