Re: [PATCH 1/2] clone: allow "--bare" with "-o"

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Sep 22, 2022, 06:26 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cQxSwz2cZFLNwg_rJ==M5=pxMVvwgbDFV1r=v+rzbCuNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yyv+GjjauvvcX3M1@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 2:18 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 28 quoted lines

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 01:58:36AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > > +       (cd parent && pwd) >expect &&
> > > +       git -C clone-bare-o config remote.foo.url >actual &&
> > > +       test_cmp expect actual
> >
> > Is this safe on Microsoft Windows? My understanding from t/README:
> >
> >     When a test checks for an absolute path that a git command
> >     generated, construct the expected value using $(pwd) rather than
> >     $PWD, $TEST_DIRECTORY, or $TRASH_DIRECTORY. It makes a difference
> >     on Windows, where the shell (MSYS bash) mangles absolute path
> >     names. For details, see the commit message of 4114156ae9.
> >
> > was that you should use $(pwd) rather than raw `pwd` when comparing
> > against a path generated by Git. Is there a gap in my understanding
> > here?
>
> I think you might be mis-reading the advice here. It is saying to use
> the "pwd" program, rather than relying on the shell's $PWD variable. So
> $(pwd) and `pwd` are the same thing (and are what I'm using). The $() I
> think is just indicating that you'd do:
>
>   foo=$(pwd)
>
> And yes, I think this is a case where using the right one is important
> (which is why I used the pwd program, and not $pwd in the test).
>
> Or am I missing something else?

I was thinking, in particular, about this snippet from t/test-lib.sh:

    # git sees Windows-style pwd
    pwd () {
        builtin pwd -W
    }

If that's inherited by the subshell used in the test, then I suppose all is okay, though I think it would not be inherited.