# [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable 7 messages from 2009-10-02 to 2009-10-05. Participants: Mark Rada, Jeff King. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/21111 ## Mark Rada, 2009-10-02 01:59 Subject: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable Message-ID: <4AC55E78.7010109@mailservices.uwaterloo.ca> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4AC55E78.7010109%40mailservices.uwaterloo.ca ``` For consistency with the rest of the test files. Signed-off-by: Mark Rada --- On 2009-10-01, at 4:13 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh >> index d0ff21d..0688a57 100644 >> --- a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh >> +++ b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > > BTW. the rest of test scripts are executable, but not this one? Why? > (But correcting this should be done, if needed, in separate commit). I noticed one other test script that was not set to be executable. 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh old mode 100644 new mode 100755 diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh old mode 100644 new mode 100755 -- 1.6.5.rc2 ``` ## Jeff King, 2009-10-02 08:01 Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable Message-ID: <20091002080134.GD27664@coredump.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20091002080134.GD27664%40coredump.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <4AC55E78.7010109@mailservices.uwaterloo.ca> ``` On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:59:20PM -0400, Mark Rada wrote: > For consistency with the rest of the test files. Thanks. Interestingly, though, I think this may be triggering a bug in git-am: > 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh > mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > > diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh > old mode 100644 > new mode 100755 > diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > old mode 100644 > new mode 100755 When applying via "am", I only got the first change in my tree. I'll see if I can confirm and make a test case. -Peff ``` ## Jeff King, 2009-10-02 08:39 Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable Message-ID: <20091002083946.GA8627@coredump.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20091002083946.GA8627%40coredump.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <20091002080134.GD27664@coredump.intra.peff.net> ``` On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 04:01:34AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh > > mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > > > > diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh > > old mode 100644 > > new mode 100755 > > diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > > b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > > old mode 100644 > > new mode 100755 > > When applying via "am", I only got the first change in my tree. I'll see > if I can confirm and make a test case. Ah, nevermind. The problem is that your patch was word-wrapped, making the second "diff --git" line bogus. It would have been nice to have it print a warning instead of silently ignoring that bit of the patch. I'm not sure if it is a good idea, though. git-apply sees that the "diff --git" line is there but can't get a filename from it. Which _should_ cause it to barf when we get to the mode lines. But we first see the wrapped filename and consider that patch section to be over (and the mode lines just become cruft at the end of the patch, which we must ignore). And we must consider that patch section to be over when we see random text, because we need to jump back to the outer parser looking for more hunks. We could warn about a "diff --git" line that has no actual changes associated with it, though that is certainly a user-visible change. I also suspect it wouldn't help if there was a mode change followed by some actual content changes. Hmph. -Peff ``` ## Mark Rada, 2009-10-04 13:18 Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable Message-ID: <1762B430-2DC0-48F5-8C34-8428F9145A1E@mailservices.uwaterloo.ca> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1762B430-2DC0-48F5-8C34-8428F9145A1E%40mailservices.uwaterloo.ca In-Reply-To: <20091002083946.GA8627@coredump.intra.peff.net> ``` On 2009-10-02, at 4:39 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 04:01:34AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >>> 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh >>> mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http- >>> status.sh >>> >>> diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep- >>> submodule-push.sh >>> old mode 100644 >>> new mode 100755 >>> diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh >>> b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh >>> old mode 100644 >>> new mode 100755 >> >> When applying via "am", I only got the first change in my tree. >> I'll see >> if I can confirm and make a test case. > > Ah, nevermind. The problem is that your patch was word-wrapped, making > the second "diff --git" line bogus. It would have been nice to have it > print a warning instead of silently ignoring that bit of the patch. > I didn't have format=flowed buggering things up this time, so I don't quite understand the problem; could you please explain with more details? When I try to apply the patch from a saved copy of the e-mail, I get the following error: # git am ~/Downloads/\[PATCH\]\ tests_\ make\ all\ test\ files\ executable.eml Patch format detection failed. zsh: exit 1 git am The difference between the patch created by format-patch and the saved e-mail is just some e-mail header information. Is that a different error than what you were getting? I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, help would be appreciated. -- Mark Rada (ferrous26) marada@uwaterloo.ca ``` ## Jeff King, 2009-10-04 13:40 Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable Message-ID: <20091004134022.GA14209@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20091004134022.GA14209%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <1762B430-2DC0-48F5-8C34-8428F9145A1E@mailservices.uwaterloo.ca> ``` On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 09:18:20AM -0400, Mark Rada wrote: > >Ah, nevermind. The problem is that your patch was word-wrapped, making > >the second "diff --git" line bogus. It would have been nice to have it > >print a warning instead of silently ignoring that bit of the patch. > > > I didn't have format=flowed buggering things up this time, so I don't > quite understand the problem; could you please explain with more > details? Sure. The patch is perfect except for one line. What should have been: diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh was wrapped to: diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh I have no idea how you did that, though. :) It looks like you send with Thunderbird. How do you get the diff content into the email? Is it possible that it wraps the content after you have gotten it there? > When I try to apply the patch from a saved copy of the e-mail, I get > the following error: > > # git am ~/Downloads/\[PATCH\]\ tests_\ make\ all\ test\ files\ > executable.eml > Patch format detection failed. > zsh: exit 1 git am > > The difference between the patch created by format-patch and the saved > e-mail is just some e-mail header information. Is that a different error > than what you were getting? I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, help > would be appreciated. Yeah, that's totally different than the problem I was having. I save to an mbox from mutt, which "git am" understands just fine. I'd have to see what was in your .eml file to know why "git am" couldn't figure it out (and it might be a good test case, as "git am" has recently learned to accept more mailbox formats). -Peff ``` ## Mark Rada, 2009-10-05 01:25 Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable Message-ID: <4AC94B07.4000803@mailservices.uwaterloo.ca> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4AC94B07.4000803%40mailservices.uwaterloo.ca In-Reply-To: <20091004134022.GA14209@sigill.intra.peff.net> ``` On 09-10-04 9:40 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 09:18:20AM -0400, Mark Rada wrote: > >>> Ah, nevermind. The problem is that your patch was word-wrapped, making >>> the second "diff --git" line bogus. It would have been nice to have it >>> print a warning instead of silently ignoring that bit of the patch. >>> >> I didn't have format=flowed buggering things up this time, so I don't >> quite understand the problem; could you please explain with more >> details? > > Sure. The patch is perfect except for one line. What should have been: > > diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > > was wrapped to: > > diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh > > I have no idea how you did that, though. :) > > It looks like you send with Thunderbird. How do you get the diff content > into the email? Is it possible that it wraps the content after you have > gotten it there? I don't think so, I have plug-in that disables wrapping and has worked just fine for the last couple of patches I sent, so I'm not sure what was going on there. >> When I try to apply the patch from a saved copy of the e-mail, I get >> the following error: >> >> # git am ~/Downloads/\[PATCH\]\ tests_\ make\ all\ test\ files\ >> executable.eml >> Patch format detection failed. >> zsh: exit 1 git am >> >> The difference between the patch created by format-patch and the saved >> e-mail is just some e-mail header information. Is that a different error >> than what you were getting? I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, help >> would be appreciated. > > Yeah, that's totally different than the problem I was having. I save to > an mbox from mutt, which "git am" understands just fine. I'd have to see > what was in your .eml file to know why "git am" couldn't figure it out > (and it might be a good test case, as "git am" has recently learned to > accept more mailbox formats). I've attached a copy of the .eml file. -- Mark Rada (ferrous26) marada@uwaterloo.ca From: Mark Rada Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:59:20 -0400 To: Junio C Hamano CC: git@vger.kernel.org Rm9yIGNvbnNpc3RlbmN5IHdpdGggdGhlIHJlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIHRlc3QgZmlsZXMuCgpTaWdu ZWQtb2ZmLWJ5OiBNYXJrIFJhZGEgPG1hcmFkYUB1d2F0ZXJsb28uY2E+Ci0tLQoKT24gMjAw OS0xMC0wMSwgYXQgNDoxMyBBTSwgSmFrdWIgTmFyZWJza2kgd3JvdGU6Cj4+ID4+IGRpZmYg LS1naXQgYS90L3Q5NTAxLWdpdHdlYi1zdGFuZGFsb25lLWh0dHAtc3RhdHVzLnNoIGIvdC90 OTUwMS1naXR3ZWItc3RhbmRhbG9uZS1odHRwLXN0YXR1cy5zaAo+PiA+PiBpbmRleCBkMGZm MjFkLi4wNjg4YTU3IDEwMDY0NAo+PiA+PiAtLS0gYS90L3Q5NTAxLWdpdHdlYi1zdGFuZGFs b25lLWh0dHAtc3RhdHVzLnNoCj4+ID4+ICsrKyBiL3QvdDk1MDEtZ2l0d2ViLXN0YW5kYWxv bmUtaHR0cC1zdGF0dXMuc2gKPiA+IAo+ID4gQlRXLiB0aGUgcmVzdCBvZiB0ZXN0IHNjcmlw dHMgYXJlIGV4ZWN1dGFibGUsIGJ1dCBub3QgdGhpcyBvbmU/IFdoeT8KPiA+IChCdXQgY29y cmVjdGluZyB0aGlzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBkb25lLCBpZiBuZWVkZWQsIGluIHNlcGFyYXRlIGNv bW1pdCkuCgpJIG5vdGljZWQgb25lIG90aGVyIHRlc3Qgc2NyaXB0IHRoYXQgd2FzIG5vdCBz ZXQgdG8gYmUgZXhlY3V0YWJsZS4KCgogMCBmaWxlcyBjaGFuZ2VkLCAwIGluc2VydGlvbnMo KyksIDAgZGVsZXRpb25zKC0pCiBtb2RlIGNoYW5nZSAxMDA2NDQgPT4gMTAwNzU1IHQvdDU1 MzEtZGVlcC1zdWJtb2R1bGUtcHVzaC5zaAogbW9kZSBjaGFuZ2UgMTAwNjQ0ID0+IDEwMDc1 NSB0L3Q5NTAxLWdpdHdlYi1zdGFuZGFsb25lLWh0dHAtc3RhdHVzLnNoCgpkaWZmIC0tZ2l0 IGEvdC90NTUzMS1kZWVwLXN1Ym1vZHVsZS1wdXNoLnNoIGIvdC90NTUzMS1kZWVwLXN1Ym1v ZHVsZS1wdXNoLnNoCm9sZCBtb2RlIDEwMDY0NApuZXcgbW9kZSAxMDA3NTUKZGlmZiAtLWdp dCBhL3QvdDk1MDEtZ2l0d2ViLXN0YW5kYWxvbmUtaHR0cC1zdGF0dXMuc2gKYi90L3Q5NTAx LWdpdHdlYi1zdGFuZGFsb25lLWh0dHAtc3RhdHVzLnNoCm9sZCBtb2RlIDEwMDY0NApuZXcg bW9kZSAxMDA3NTUKLS0gMS42LjUucmMyIA== ``` ## Jeff King, 2009-10-05 09:59 Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable Message-ID: <20091005095912.GA31426@coredump.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20091005095912.GA31426%40coredump.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <4AC94B07.4000803@mailservices.uwaterloo.ca> ``` On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 09:25:27PM -0400, Mark Rada wrote: > > It looks like you send with Thunderbird. How do you get the diff content > > into the email? Is it possible that it wraps the content after you have > > gotten it there? > > I don't think so, I have plug-in that disables wrapping and has worked > just fine for the last couple of patches I sent, so I'm not sure what > was going on there. I don't know, then. I'm pretty sure it wasn't wrapped up on my end, as it is also wrapped in gmane: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/129420 Maybe some hints are here: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-_Thunderbird > > an mbox from mutt, which "git am" understands just fine. I'd have to see > > what was in your .eml file to know why "git am" couldn't figure it out > > (and it might be a good test case, as "git am" has recently learned to > > accept more mailbox formats). > > I've attached a copy of the .eml file. Hmm. The .eml format appears to be some kind of inscrutable binary format. "git am" certainly won't understand it. I'm not sure how you created it, but you need to convince Thunderbird to export as an 'mbox' format (which it clearly understands, as that is its native local format). I have no idea how to do that, though. -Peff ```