Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] git-p4: create new method gitRunHook
- From
Ben Keene <seraphire@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 5, 2020, 19:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ac44531e-b02d-5a98-3e25-a305b1250cf6@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqr1za6q83.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On 2/4/2020 3:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 25 quoted lines
> "Ben Keene via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/git-p4.py b/git-p4.py
>> index 7d8a5ee788..4e481b3b55 100755
>> --- a/git-p4.py
>> +++ b/git-p4.py
>> @@ -4125,6 +4125,35 @@ def printUsage(commands):
>> "unshelve" : P4Unshelve,
>> }
>>
>> +def gitRunHook(cmd, param=[]):
>> + """Execute a hook if the hook exists."""
>> + if verbose:
>> + sys.stderr.write("Looking for hook: %s\n" % cmd)
>> + sys.stderr.flush()
>> +
>> + hooks_path = gitConfig("core.hooksPath")
>> + if len(hooks_path) <= 0:
>> + hooks_path = os.path.join(os.environ.get("GIT_DIR", ".git"), "hooks")
> This assumes that the process when his function is called (by the
> way, even though the title of the patch uses the word "method", this
> is not a method but a function, no?), it is always at the top level
> of the working tree. Is that a good assumption? I don't know the
> code well, so "yes it is good because a very early thing we do is to
> go up to the top" is a good answer.I'm not sure what you mean by top level of the tree unless you mean that it is not part of a class, but a "Free standing" function? And yes, it returns a value so it should be called a function. I'll correct that. I chose to not put the function within a class so that if other hooks should be added, it would not require a refactoring of the code to use the function in other classes.
Show 20 quoted lines
>> + hook_file = os.path.join(hooks_path, cmd)
>> + if isinstance(param,basestring):
>> + param=[param]
>> +
>> + if platform.system() == 'Windows':
>> + exepath = os.environ.get("EXEPATH")
>> + if exepath is None:
>> + exepath = ""
>> + shexe = os.path.join(exepath, "bin", "sh.exe")
>> + if os.path.isfile(shexe) \
>> + and os.path.isfile(hook_file) \
>> + and os.access(hook_file, os.X_OK) \
>> + and subprocess.call([shexe, hook_file] + param) != 0:
>> + return False
>> +
>> + else:
>> + if os.path.isfile(hook_file) and os.access(hook_file, os.X_OK) and subprocess.call([hook_file] + param) != 0:
>> + return False
> Doesn't this mean that on Windows, a hook MUST be written as a shell
> script, but on other platforms, a hook can be any executable?Good point.
> > I am not sure if it is necessary to penalize Windows users this way. > How do other parts of the system run hooks on Windows? E.g. can > "pre-commit" hook be an executable Python script on Windows?
Unfortunately, the original code for running the p4-pre-submit hook was under-developed and there was no way to run other executable files in the context of a hook. Nothing ran for me, which is what prompted this change. But to your point, the restrictions are unnecessary. I googled around a little and found these two SO articles:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18277429/executing-git-hooks-on-windows
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22074247/git-hook-under-windows
But I haven't found information on how Git for Windows handles hooks directly.
Show 28 quoted lines
> > Even if it is needed to have different implementations (and possibly > reduced capabilities) for "we found this file is a hook, now run it > with these parameters" on different platform, the above looks a bit > inverted. If the code in this function were > > if os.path.isfile(hook_file) and > os.access(hook_file, os.X_OK) and > run_hook_command(hook_file, param) != 0: > return False > else: > return True > > and a thin helper function whose only task is "now run it with these > parameters" is separately written, e.g. > > def run_hook_command(hook_file, params): > if Windows: > ... do things in Windows specific way ... > else: > return subprocess.call([hook_file] + param) > > That would have been 100% better, as it would have made it clear > that logically gitRunHook() does exactly the same thing on all > platforms (i.e. find where the hook is, normalize param, check if > the hook file is actually enabled, and finally execute the hook with > the param), while the details of how the "execute" part (and only > that part) works may be different.
I'm committing a new version of this change that will define run_hook_command.
>> + return True >> >> def main(): >> if len(sys.argv[1:]) == 0: