Stefan Beller <[email protected]> writes:
> Every once in a while someone complains to the mailing list to have
> run into this weird assertion[1].
>
> The usual response from the mailing list is link to old discussions[2],
> and acknowledging the problem stating it is known.
>
> For now just improve the user visible error message.
Thans. judging from the date: header I take this is meant as v3 that
supersedes v2 done on Wednesday.
It is not clear in the above that what this thing is. Given that we
are de-asserting it, is the early part of the new code diagnosing an
end-user error (i.e. you gave me a pathspec but that extends into a
submodule which is a no-no)? The "was a submodule issue" comment
added is "this is an end-user mistake, there is nothing to fix in
the code"?
I take that the new "BUG" thing tells the Git developers that no
sane codepath should throw an pathspec_item that satisfies the
condition of the if() statement for non-submodules?
> diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
> index 22ca74a126..b446d79615 100644
> --- a/pathspec.c
> +++ b/pathspec.c
> @@ -313,8 +313,23 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item
> *item,
> }
>
> /* sanity checks, pathspec matchers assume these are sane */
> - assert(item->nowildcard_len <= item->len &&
> - item->prefix <= item->len);
> + if (item->nowildcard_len > item->len ||
> + item->prefix > item->len) {
> + /* Historically this always was a submodule issue */
> + for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++) {
> + struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[i];
> + int ce_len = ce_namelen(ce);
> + int len = ce_len < item->len ? ce_len : item->len;
> + if (!S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))
> + continue;
Computation of ce_len and len are better done after this check, no?
> + if (!memcmp(ce->name, item->match, len))
> + die (_("Pathspec '%s' is in submodule '%.*s'"),
> + item->original, ce_len, ce->name);
> + }
> + /* The error is a new unknown bug */
> + die ("BUG: item->nowildcard_len > item->len || item->prefix >
> item->len)");
> + }
> +
> return magic;
> }
>
> diff --git a/t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh
> b/t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000000..e62dbb7327
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +test_description='test case exclude pathspec'
> +
> +. ./test-lib.sh
> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup a submodule' '
> + test_commit 1 &&
> + git submodule add ./ sub &&
Is this adding our own project as its submodule?
It MIGHT be a handy hack when writing a test, but let's stop doing
that insanity. No sane project does that in real life, doesn't it?
Create a subdirectory, make it a repository, have a commit there and
bind that as our own submodule. That would be a more normal way to
start your own superproject and its submodule pair if they originate
together at the same place.
Better yet create a separate repository, have a commit there, and
then pull it in with "git submodule add && git submodule init" into
our repository. That would be the normal way to borrow somebody
else's project as a part of your own superproject.
> + git commit -a -m "add submodule" &&
> + git submodule deinit --all
> +'
> +
> +cat <<EOF >expect
> +fatal: Pathspec 'sub/a' is in submodule 'sub'
> +EOF
> +
> +test_expect_success 'error message for path inside submodule' '
> + echo a >sub/a &&
> + test_must_fail git add sub/a 2>actual &&
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +cat <<EOF >expect
> +fatal: Pathspec '.' is in submodule 'sub'
> +EOF
> +
> +test_expect_success 'error message for path inside submodule from within
> submodule' '
> + test_must_fail git -C sub add . 2>actual &&
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +test_done
