threads / patch / 57692

patchstash: disable literal treatment when passing top pathspec

Subject: [PATCH] stash: disable literal treatment when passing top pathspec

## tl;dr

7 messages between Apr 8, 2022 and Apr 11, 2022. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 6people: 4as markdown or json

Kyle Meyer· Apr 8, 2022, 03:12 UTC · lore

do_push_stash() passes ":/" as the pathspec to two subprocess calls. When pathspecs are interpreted literally for the main process, these subprocess calls do not behave as intended:

 * the 'git clean' call, triggered by --include-untracked, does not
   remove untracked files from the working tree
 * the 'git checkout' call, triggered by --keep-index, fails with a
   message about ":/" not matching any known files, and the main
   command exits with a non-zero status

Fix both of these spots by passing --no-literal-pathspecs to the subprocess commands.

Signed-off-by: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
---
 builtin/stash.c                    | 5 ++++-
 t/t3903-stash.sh                   | 5 +++++
 t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh | 5 +++++
 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Show changes to 3 files +14 −1

builtin/stash.c, t/t3903-stash.sh, t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh

diff --git a/builtin/stash.c b/builtin/stash.c
index 0c7b6a9588..afc8400c5d 100644
--- a/builtin/stash.c
+++ b/builtin/stash.c
@@ -1529,7 +1529,8 @@ static int do_push_stash(const struct pathspec *ps, const char *stash_msg, int q
 					     GIT_WORK_TREE_ENVIRONMENT,
 					     the_repository->worktree);
 			}
-			strvec_pushl(&cp.args, "clean", "--force",
+			strvec_pushl(&cp.args, "--no-literal-pathspecs",
+				     "clean", "--force",
 				     "--quiet", "-d", ":/", NULL);
 			if (include_untracked == INCLUDE_ALL_FILES)
 				strvec_push(&cp.args, "-x");
@@ -1592,6 +1593,8 @@ static int do_push_stash(const struct pathspec *ps, const char *stash_msg, int q
 			struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
 
 			cp.git_cmd = 1;
+			if (!ps->nr)
+				strvec_push(&cp.args, "--no-literal-pathspecs");
 			strvec_pushl(&cp.args, "checkout", "--no-overlay",
 				     oid_to_hex(&info.i_tree), "--", NULL);
 			if (!ps->nr)
diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index 4abbc8fcca..f85c3a06cb 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -1383,6 +1383,11 @@ test_expect_success 'stash --keep-index with file deleted in index does not resu
 	test_path_is_missing to-remove
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'stash --keep-index succeeds with --literal-pathspecs' '
+	echo modified >file &&
+	git --literal-pathspecs stash --keep-index
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'stash apply should succeed with unmodified file' '
 	echo base >file &&
 	git add file &&
diff --git a/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh b/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh
index 5390eec4e3..2f216274b2 100755
--- a/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh
+++ b/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh
@@ -427,5 +427,10 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -u ignores sub-repository' '
 	git init sub-repo &&
 	git stash -u
 '
+test_expect_success 'stash -u works with --literal-pathspecs' '
+	>untracked &&
+	git --literal-pathspecs stash -u &&
+	test_path_is_missing untracked
+'
 
 test_done

base-commit: bf23fe5c37d62f37267d31d4afa1a1444f70cdac

-- 
2.34.0
Bagas Sanjaya· Apr 8, 2022, 06:33 UTC · re: Kyle Meyer · lore

Re: [PATCH] stash: disable literal treatment when passing top pathspec

On 08/04/22 10.12, Kyle Meyer wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> +test_expect_success 'stash -u works with --literal-pathspecs' '
> +	>untracked &&
> +	git --literal-pathspecs stash -u &&
> +	test_path_is_missing untracked
> +'
Why not "touch untracked" instead?
-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason· Apr 8, 2022, 08:46 UTC · re: Bagas Sanjaya · lore

Re: [PATCH] stash: disable literal treatment when passing top pathspec

On Fri, Apr 08 2022, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> On 08/04/22 10.12, Kyle Meyer wrote:
>> +test_expect_success 'stash -u works with --literal-pathspecs' '
>> +	>untracked &&
>> +	git --literal-pathspecs stash -u &&
>> +	test_path_is_missing untracked
>> +'
>
> Why not "touch untracked" instead?

The ">" form is correct here. We use "touch" when updating the timestamp to something in particular is important, but here we're just creating an empty file.

Junio C Hamano· Apr 8, 2022, 18:47 UTC · re: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason · lore

Re: [PATCH] stash: disable literal treatment when passing top pathspec

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On Fri, Apr 08 2022, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/22 10.12, Kyle Meyer wrote:
>>> +test_expect_success 'stash -u works with --literal-pathspecs' '
>>> +	>untracked &&
>>> +	git --literal-pathspecs stash -u &&
>>> +	test_path_is_missing untracked
>>> +'
>>
>> Why not "touch untracked" instead?
>
> The ">" form is correct here. We use "touch" when updating the timestamp
> to something in particular is important, but here we're just creating an
> empty file.
Maybe it is better to have it in CodingGuidelines or t/README?
Thanks.
Junio C Hamano· Apr 8, 2022, 18:46 UTC · re: Kyle Meyer · lore

Re: [PATCH] stash: disable literal treatment when passing top pathspec

Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
Show 13 quoted lines
> do_push_stash() passes ":/" as the pathspec to two subprocess calls.
> When pathspecs are interpreted literally for the main process, these
> subprocess calls do not behave as intended:
>
>  * the 'git clean' call, triggered by --include-untracked, does not
>    remove untracked files from the working tree
>
>  * the 'git checkout' call, triggered by --keep-index, fails with a
>    message about ":/" not matching any known files, and the main
>    command exits with a non-zero status
>
> Fix both of these spots by passing --no-literal-pathspecs to the
> subprocess commands.
Yuck (to the original problem, not to the proposed solution).

I wonder if stopping to use ":/" (or using "." instead, if we need to give _some_ pathspec) is a better approach. Don't we move to the top of the working tree by the time cmd_stash() is called and whatever subprocess we spawn via run_command() interface will start at the top anyway, no?

Show 63 quoted lines
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
> ---
>  builtin/stash.c                    | 5 ++++-
>  t/t3903-stash.sh                   | 5 +++++
>  t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh | 5 +++++
>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/stash.c b/builtin/stash.c
> index 0c7b6a9588..afc8400c5d 100644
> --- a/builtin/stash.c
> +++ b/builtin/stash.c
> @@ -1529,7 +1529,8 @@ static int do_push_stash(const struct pathspec *ps, const char *stash_msg, int q
>  					     GIT_WORK_TREE_ENVIRONMENT,
>  					     the_repository->worktree);
>  			}
> -			strvec_pushl(&cp.args, "clean", "--force",
> +			strvec_pushl(&cp.args, "--no-literal-pathspecs",
> +				     "clean", "--force",
>  				     "--quiet", "-d", ":/", NULL);
>  			if (include_untracked == INCLUDE_ALL_FILES)
>  				strvec_push(&cp.args, "-x");
> @@ -1592,6 +1593,8 @@ static int do_push_stash(const struct pathspec *ps, const char *stash_msg, int q
>  			struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
>  
>  			cp.git_cmd = 1;
> +			if (!ps->nr)
> +				strvec_push(&cp.args, "--no-literal-pathspecs");
>  			strvec_pushl(&cp.args, "checkout", "--no-overlay",
>  				     oid_to_hex(&info.i_tree), "--", NULL);
>  			if (!ps->nr)
> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> index 4abbc8fcca..f85c3a06cb 100755
> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> @@ -1383,6 +1383,11 @@ test_expect_success 'stash --keep-index with file deleted in index does not resu
>  	test_path_is_missing to-remove
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'stash --keep-index succeeds with --literal-pathspecs' '
> +	echo modified >file &&
> +	git --literal-pathspecs stash --keep-index
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'stash apply should succeed with unmodified file' '
>  	echo base >file &&
>  	git add file &&
> diff --git a/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh b/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh
> index 5390eec4e3..2f216274b2 100755
> --- a/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh
> +++ b/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh
> @@ -427,5 +427,10 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -u ignores sub-repository' '
>  	git init sub-repo &&
>  	git stash -u
>  '
> +test_expect_success 'stash -u works with --literal-pathspecs' '
> +	>untracked &&
> +	git --literal-pathspecs stash -u &&
> +	test_path_is_missing untracked
> +'
>  
>  test_done
>
> base-commit: bf23fe5c37d62f37267d31d4afa1a1444f70cdac
Kyle Meyer· Apr 9, 2022, 04:10 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH] stash: disable literal treatment when passing top pathspec

Junio C Hamano writes:
> Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
[...]
Show 17 quoted lines
>>  * the 'git clean' call, triggered by --include-untracked, does not
>>    remove untracked files from the working tree
>>
>>  * the 'git checkout' call, triggered by --keep-index, fails with a
>>    message about ":/" not matching any known files, and the main
>>    command exits with a non-zero status
>>
>> Fix both of these spots by passing --no-literal-pathspecs to the
>> subprocess commands.
>
> Yuck (to the original problem, not to the proposed solution).
>
> I wonder if stopping to use ":/" (or using "." instead, if we need
> to give _some_ pathspec) is a better approach.  Don't we move to the
> top of the working tree by the time cmd_stash() is called and whatever
> subprocess we spawn via run_command() interface will start at the
> top anyway, no?

For the --keep-index/checkout case, yes, it looks like the command starts from the top-level. Passing "." as the pathspec to checkout works fine, as far as I can tell.

However, for --include-untracked/clean case, the subprocess directory is set to startup_info->original_cwd since 0fce211ccc (stash: do not attempt to remove startup_info->original_cwd, 2021-12-09).

Junio C Hamano· Apr 11, 2022, 17:55 UTC · re: Kyle Meyer · lore

Re: [PATCH] stash: disable literal treatment when passing top pathspec

Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
> However, for --include-untracked/clean case, the subprocess directory is
> set to startup_info->original_cwd since 0fce211ccc (stash: do not
> attempt to remove startup_info->original_cwd, 2021-12-09).

Interesting. I find the logic there a bit convoluted. IIUC, it goes like this:

 - we do not want to lose the directory our process was originally
   in, which is recorded in startup_info->original_cmd.
 - we have gone up to the root of the working tree, and running
   "clean" from there is what we want---even if we started "git
   stash" from a subdirectory, we want to make the entire working
   tree clean, not just inside our subdirectory.
 - but we came up with a hack that allows us to skip removing the
   directory the Git process started at.  To take advantage of the
   mechanism, we'd need to start from that original_cmd.
 - but then "clean" run from that subdirectory normally cleans only
   that subdirectory, which is not what we want to do.  To work it
   around, we'd need to pass :/ pathspec to say that we are cleaning
   from the top.

It makes me suspect that "we protect current directory" is a too specialized way that didn't really consider the possibility that we sometimes spawn a subcommand. Even "we protect this directory" may not be sufficient and we may need a "we protect these directories", I suspect. When the user originally starts "git foo" in one directory, which may have to run "git bar" in another directory, and "git bar" would want to protect the directory it starts in and also where "git foo" started from, no? It almost makes me suspect that we'd want some "git" wide option that allows us to pass a list of paths not to rmdir, whose default value is ["."], or something.

Elijah, thoughts?

But as a short-term fix, I think "--no-literal-pathspecs" is fine for this code path.

Thanks.

← back to recent threads