threads / patch / 58865

v3am: Allow passing --no-verify flag

Subject: [PATCH v3] am: Allow passing --no-verify flag

## tl;dr

5 messages between Nov 28, 2022 and Nov 29, 2022. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 4people: 3as markdown or json

Thierry Reding· Nov 28, 2022, 17:48 UTC · lore
From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

The git-am --no-verify flag is analogous to the same flag passed to git-commit. It bypasses the pre-applypatch and applypatch-msg hooks if they are enabled.

Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- move tests to existing t/t4150-am
Changes in v2:
- add test to verify that the new option works
 Documentation/git-am.txt |  8 +++++++-
 builtin/am.c             | 11 ++++++++---
 t/t4150-am.sh            | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Show changes to 3 files +35 −4

Documentation/git-am.txt, builtin/am.c, t/t4150-am.sh

diff --git a/Documentation/git-am.txt b/Documentation/git-am.txt
index 326276e51ce5..0c1dfb3c98b4 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-am.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-am.txt
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ git-am - Apply a series of patches from a mailbox
 SYNOPSIS
 --------
 [verse]
-'git am' [--signoff] [--keep] [--[no-]keep-cr] [--[no-]utf8]
+'git am' [--signoff] [--keep] [--[no-]keep-cr] [--[no-]utf8] [--no-verify]
 	 [--[no-]3way] [--interactive] [--committer-date-is-author-date]
 	 [--ignore-date] [--ignore-space-change | --ignore-whitespace]
 	 [--whitespace=<option>] [-C<n>] [-p<n>] [--directory=<dir>]
@@ -138,6 +138,12 @@ include::rerere-options.txt[]
 --interactive::
 	Run interactively.
 
+-n::
+--no-verify::
+	By default, the pre-applypatch and applypatch-msg hooks are run.
+	When any of `--no-verify` or `-n` is given, these are bypassed.
+	See also linkgit:githooks[5].
+
 --committer-date-is-author-date::
 	By default the command records the date from the e-mail
 	message as the commit author date, and uses the time of
diff --git a/builtin/am.c b/builtin/am.c
index 30c9b3a9cd72..dfe8104f570d 100644
--- a/builtin/am.c
+++ b/builtin/am.c
@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ struct am_state {
 
 	/* various operating modes and command line options */
 	int interactive;
+	int no_verify;
 	int threeway;
 	int quiet;
 	int signoff; /* enum signoff_type */
@@ -472,10 +473,12 @@ static void am_destroy(const struct am_state *state)
  */
 static int run_applypatch_msg_hook(struct am_state *state)
 {
-	int ret;
+	int ret = 0;
 
 	assert(state->msg);
-	ret = run_hooks_l("applypatch-msg", am_path(state, "final-commit"), NULL);
+
+	if (!state->no_verify)
+		ret = run_hooks_l("applypatch-msg", am_path(state, "final-commit"), NULL);
 
 	if (!ret) {
 		FREE_AND_NULL(state->msg);
@@ -1640,7 +1643,7 @@ static void do_commit(const struct am_state *state)
 	const char *reflog_msg, *author, *committer = NULL;
 	struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
 
-	if (run_hooks("pre-applypatch"))
+	if (!state->no_verify && run_hooks("pre-applypatch"))
 		exit(1);
 
 	if (write_cache_as_tree(&tree, 0, NULL))
@@ -2330,6 +2333,8 @@ int cmd_am(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 	struct option options[] = {
 		OPT_BOOL('i', "interactive", &state.interactive,
 			N_("run interactively")),
+		OPT_BOOL('n', "no-verify", &state.no_verify,
+			N_("bypass pre-applypatch and applypatch-msg hooks")),
 		OPT_HIDDEN_BOOL('b', "binary", &binary,
 			N_("historical option -- no-op")),
 		OPT_BOOL('3', "3way", &state.threeway,
diff --git a/t/t4150-am.sh b/t/t4150-am.sh
index cdad4b688078..84e6bebeca7a 100755
--- a/t/t4150-am.sh
+++ b/t/t4150-am.sh
@@ -345,6 +345,16 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing applypatch-msg hook' '
 	test_cmp_rev first HEAD
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'am with failing applypatch-msg hook (no verify)' '
+	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
+	git reset --hard &&
+	git checkout first &&
+	test_hook applypatch-msg <<-\EOF &&
+	exit 1
+	EOF
+	git am --no-verify patch1
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'am with pre-applypatch hook' '
 	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
 	git reset --hard &&
@@ -374,6 +384,16 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook' '
 	test_cmp_rev first HEAD
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook (no verify)' '
+	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
+	git reset --hard &&
+	git checkout first &&
+	test_hook pre-applypatch <<-\EOF &&
+	exit 1
+	EOF
+	git am --no-verify patch1
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'am with post-applypatch hook' '
 	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
 	git reset --hard &&
-- 
2.38.1
Taylor Blau· Nov 28, 2022, 23:07 UTC · re: Thierry Reding · lore

Re: [PATCH v3] am: Allow passing --no-verify flag

Hi Thierry,

This is looking pretty good. Thanks for pushing out a couple of new rounds. I took a look at the discussion and have some thoughts below, but they are minor.

This will likely not be in the upcoming v2.39.0, since Junio has already cut and pushed the first release candidate tag. But you should feel free to keep working on it in the meantime and we can revisit it post-2.39.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 06:48:25PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-am.txt b/Documentation/git-am.txt
> index 326276e51ce5..0c1dfb3c98b4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-am.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-am.txt
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ git-am - Apply a series of patches from a mailbox
>  SYNOPSIS
>  --------
>  [verse]
> -'git am' [--signoff] [--keep] [--[no-]keep-cr] [--[no-]utf8]
> +'git am' [--signoff] [--keep] [--[no-]keep-cr] [--[no-]utf8] [--no-verify]

Spelling this as "[--no-verify]" and not "[--[no-]verify]" is right, since the option itself is called "--no-verify" (and thus has the OPT_NONEG flag bit set), and "--verify" does not exist. Good.

Show 11 quoted lines
>  	 [--[no-]3way] [--interactive] [--committer-date-is-author-date]
>  	 [--ignore-date] [--ignore-space-change | --ignore-whitespace]
>  	 [--whitespace=<option>] [-C<n>] [-p<n>] [--directory=<dir>]
> @@ -138,6 +138,12 @@ include::rerere-options.txt[]
>  --interactive::
>  	Run interactively.
>
> +-n::
> +--no-verify::
> +	By default, the pre-applypatch and applypatch-msg hooks are run.
> +	When any of `--no-verify` or `-n` is given, these are bypassed.

Should we be more explicit here, given the discussion in the earlier rounds? IOW, instead of saying that they are "bypassed" (which might lead the reader to believe that they are run and their output/exit code ignored), should we say that they are "not run" and be clearer?

The (elided) implementation below looks good to me.
Show 16 quoted lines
> diff --git a/t/t4150-am.sh b/t/t4150-am.sh
> index cdad4b688078..84e6bebeca7a 100755
> --- a/t/t4150-am.sh
> +++ b/t/t4150-am.sh
> @@ -345,6 +345,16 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing applypatch-msg hook' '
>  	test_cmp_rev first HEAD
>  '
>
> +test_expect_success 'am with failing applypatch-msg hook (no verify)' '
> +	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
> +	git reset --hard &&
> +	git checkout first &&
> +	test_hook applypatch-msg <<-\EOF &&
> +	exit 1
> +	EOF
> +	git am --no-verify patch1
Should we verify that the patch was applied with the expected message?
Show 17 quoted lines
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'am with pre-applypatch hook' '
>  	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
>  	git reset --hard &&
> @@ -374,6 +384,16 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook' '
>  	test_cmp_rev first HEAD
>  '
>
> +test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook (no verify)' '
> +	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
> +	git reset --hard &&
> +	git checkout first &&
> +	test_hook pre-applypatch <<-\EOF &&
> +	exit 1
> +	EOF
> +	git am --no-verify patch1
Ditto here.

Thanks, Taylor

Thierry Reding· Nov 29, 2022, 10:02 UTC · re: Taylor Blau · lore

Re: [PATCH v3] am: Allow passing --no-verify flag

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 06:07:38PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> This is looking pretty good. Thanks for pushing out a couple of new
> rounds. I took a look at the discussion and have some thoughts below,
> but they are minor.
> 
> This will likely not be in the upcoming v2.39.0, since Junio has already
> cut and pushed the first release candidate tag. But you should feel free
> to keep working on it in the meantime and we can revisit it post-2.39.

That's fine. No rush. I've had local workarounds for this for a very long time, so I can be patient for a little longer. =)

Show 32 quoted lines
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 06:48:25PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-am.txt b/Documentation/git-am.txt
> > index 326276e51ce5..0c1dfb3c98b4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-am.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-am.txt
> > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ git-am - Apply a series of patches from a mailbox
> >  SYNOPSIS
> >  --------
> >  [verse]
> > -'git am' [--signoff] [--keep] [--[no-]keep-cr] [--[no-]utf8]
> > +'git am' [--signoff] [--keep] [--[no-]keep-cr] [--[no-]utf8] [--no-verify]
> 
> Spelling this as "[--no-verify]" and not "[--[no-]verify]" is right,
> since the option itself is called "--no-verify" (and thus has the
> OPT_NONEG flag bit set), and "--verify" does not exist. Good.
> 
> >  	 [--[no-]3way] [--interactive] [--committer-date-is-author-date]
> >  	 [--ignore-date] [--ignore-space-change | --ignore-whitespace]
> >  	 [--whitespace=<option>] [-C<n>] [-p<n>] [--directory=<dir>]
> > @@ -138,6 +138,12 @@ include::rerere-options.txt[]
> >  --interactive::
> >  	Run interactively.
> >
> > +-n::
> > +--no-verify::
> > +	By default, the pre-applypatch and applypatch-msg hooks are run.
> > +	When any of `--no-verify` or `-n` is given, these are bypassed.
> 
> Should we be more explicit here, given the discussion in the earlier
> rounds? IOW, instead of saying that they are "bypassed" (which might
> lead the reader to believe that they are run and their output/exit code
> ignored), should we say that they are "not run" and be clearer?

I adopted the wording as for git commit and since the behavior is exactly the same, it seemed best to stay consistent with that. My interpretation of "bypassed" is equivalent to "unused" or "ignored", though "ignored" in this case relating to their existence rather than return value.

Either wording is fine with me, so if you feel strongly I can reword this. In that case it might be worth updating the git commit documentation as well to avoid the same ambiguity.

Show 21 quoted lines
> 
> The (elided) implementation below looks good to me.
> 
> > diff --git a/t/t4150-am.sh b/t/t4150-am.sh
> > index cdad4b688078..84e6bebeca7a 100755
> > --- a/t/t4150-am.sh
> > +++ b/t/t4150-am.sh
> > @@ -345,6 +345,16 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing applypatch-msg hook' '
> >  	test_cmp_rev first HEAD
> >  '
> >
> > +test_expect_success 'am with failing applypatch-msg hook (no verify)' '
> > +	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
> > +	git reset --hard &&
> > +	git checkout first &&
> > +	test_hook applypatch-msg <<-\EOF &&
> > +	exit 1
> > +	EOF
> > +	git am --no-verify patch1
> 
> Should we verify that the patch was applied with the expected message?

Yes, that's a good point. I've updated both tests to check that the patch has been applied and the scripts haven't been run.

Thanks, Thierry

Junio C Hamano· Nov 29, 2022, 01:20 UTC · re: Thierry Reding · lore

Re: [PATCH v3] am: Allow passing --no-verify flag

Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> writes:
Show 30 quoted lines
> +test_expect_success 'am with failing applypatch-msg hook (no verify)' '
> +	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
> +	git reset --hard &&
> +	git checkout first &&
> +	test_hook applypatch-msg <<-\EOF &&
> +	exit 1
> +	EOF
> +	git am --no-verify patch1
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'am with pre-applypatch hook' '
>  	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
>  	git reset --hard &&
> @@ -374,6 +384,16 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook' '
>  	test_cmp_rev first HEAD
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook (no verify)' '
> +	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
> +	git reset --hard &&
> +	git checkout first &&
> +	test_hook pre-applypatch <<-\EOF &&
> +	exit 1
> +	EOF
> +	git am --no-verify patch1
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'am with post-applypatch hook' '
>  	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
>  	git reset --hard &&

These two tests will still pass if you change the implementation to run the hook and simply ignore its exit status, but I recall you making a good argument against that alternative implementation ,in comparison to "not running the hook at all".

I think these tests should make sure that the hooks did not even run. Perhaps by creating a marker file before running "git am", adding a "rm" that marker file in the hook, and making sure that the marker file still exists after "git am" returns, or something like that.

Thierry Reding· Nov 29, 2022, 10:03 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH v3] am: Allow passing --no-verify flag

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:20:05AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 43 quoted lines
> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > +test_expect_success 'am with failing applypatch-msg hook (no verify)' '
> > +	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
> > +	git reset --hard &&
> > +	git checkout first &&
> > +	test_hook applypatch-msg <<-\EOF &&
> > +	exit 1
> > +	EOF
> > +	git am --no-verify patch1
> > +'
> > +
> >  test_expect_success 'am with pre-applypatch hook' '
> >  	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
> >  	git reset --hard &&
> > @@ -374,6 +384,16 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook' '
> >  	test_cmp_rev first HEAD
> >  '
> >  
> > +test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook (no verify)' '
> > +	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
> > +	git reset --hard &&
> > +	git checkout first &&
> > +	test_hook pre-applypatch <<-\EOF &&
> > +	exit 1
> > +	EOF
> > +	git am --no-verify patch1
> > +'
> > +
> >  test_expect_success 'am with post-applypatch hook' '
> >  	rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
> >  	git reset --hard &&
> 
> These two tests will still pass if you change the implementation to
> run the hook and simply ignore its exit status, but I recall you
> making a good argument against that alternative implementation ,in
> comparison to "not running the hook at all".
> 
> I think these tests should make sure that the hooks did not even
> run.  Perhaps by creating a marker file before running "git am",
> adding a "rm" that marker file in the hook, and making sure that
> the marker file still exists after "git am" returns, or something
> like that.

All good points. I've updated both tests to check that patches have been applied correctly and that the scripts haven't been run.

Thierry

← back to recent threads