Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] stash: Add a test for when apply fails during stash branch

[Joel Teichroeb]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
> Joel Teichroeb  writes:
>
>> If the return value of merge recurisve is not checked, the stash could end
>> up being dropped even though it was not applied properly
>
> s/recurisve/recursive/
>
>> Signed-off-by: Joel Teichroeb 
>> ---
>>  t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++
>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
>> index cc923e6335..5399fb05ca 100755
>> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
>> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
>> @@ -656,6 +656,20 @@ test_expect_success 'stash branch should not drop the 
>> stash if the branch exists
>>   git rev-parse stash@{0} --
>>  '
>>
>> +test_expect_success 'stash branch should not drop the stash if the apply 
>> fails' '
>> + git stash clear &&
>> + git reset HEAD~1 --hard &&
>> + echo foo >file &&
>> + git add file &&
>> + git commit -m initial &&
>
> It's not quite intuitive to call a non-root commit "initial" ;-)
>
>> + echo bar >file &&
>> + git stash &&
>> + echo baz >file &&
>
> OK, so 'file' has 'foo' in HEAD, 'bar' in the stash@{0}.
>
>> + test_when_finished "git checkout master" &&
>> + test_must_fail git stash branch new_branch stash@{0} &&
>
> Hmph.  Do we blindly checkout new_branch out of stash@{0}^1 and
> unstash, but because 'file' in the working tree is dirty, we fail to
> apply the stash and stop?
>
> This sounds like a bug to me.  Shouldn't we be staying on 'master',
> and fail without even creating 'new_branch', when this happens?

Good point. The existing behavior is to create new_branch and check it
out. I'm not sure what the correct state should be then. Create
new_branch, checkout new_branch, fail to apply, checkout master?
Should it then delete new_branch? Is there a way instead to test
applying the stash before creating the branch without actually
applying it? Something like putting merge_recursive into some kind of
dry-run mode?

>
> In any case we should be testing what branch we are on after this
> step.  What branch should we be on after "git stash branch" fails?
>
>> + git rev-parse stash@{0} --
>> +'
>> +
>>  test_expect_success 'stash apply shows status same as git status (relative 
>> to current directory)' '
>>   git stash clear &&
>>   echo 1 >subdir/subfile1 &&

Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] stash: Add a test for when apply fails during stash branch

[Junio C Hamano]

Joel Teichroeb  writes:

> If the return value of merge recurisve is not checked, the stash could end
> up being dropped even though it was not applied properly

s/recurisve/recursive/

> Signed-off-by: Joel Teichroeb 
> ---
>  t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> index cc923e6335..5399fb05ca 100755
> --- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
> +++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
> @@ -656,6 +656,20 @@ test_expect_success 'stash branch should not drop the 
> stash if the branch exists
>   git rev-parse stash@{0} --
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'stash branch should not drop the stash if the apply 
> fails' '
> + git stash clear &&
> + git reset HEAD~1 --hard &&
> + echo foo >file &&
> + git add file &&
> + git commit -m initial &&

It's not quite intuitive to call a non-root commit "initial" ;-)

> + echo bar >file &&
> + git stash &&
> + echo baz >file &&

OK, so 'file' has 'foo' in HEAD, 'bar' in the stash@{0}.

> + test_when_finished "git checkout master" &&
> + test_must_fail git stash branch new_branch stash@{0} &&

Hmph.  Do we blindly checkout new_branch out of stash@{0}^1 and
unstash, but because 'file' in the working tree is dirty, we fail to
apply the stash and stop?

This sounds like a bug to me.  Shouldn't we be staying on 'master',
and fail without even creating 'new_branch', when this happens?

In any case we should be testing what branch we are on after this
step.  What branch should we be on after "git stash branch" fails?

> + git rev-parse stash@{0} --
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'stash apply shows status same as git status (relative 
> to current directory)' '
>   git stash clear &&
>   echo 1 >subdir/subfile1 &&

[PATCH v4 2/5] stash: Add a test for when apply fails during stash branch

[Joel Teichroeb]

If the return value of merge recurisve is not checked, the stash could end
up being dropped even though it was not applied properly

Signed-off-by: Joel Teichroeb 
---
 t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t3903-stash.sh b/t/t3903-stash.sh
index cc923e6335..5399fb05ca 100755
--- a/t/t3903-stash.sh
+++ b/t/t3903-stash.sh
@@ -656,6 +656,20 @@ test_expect_success 'stash branch should not drop the 
stash if the branch exists
git rev-parse stash@{0} --
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'stash branch should not drop the stash if the apply 
fails' '
+   git stash clear &&
+   git reset HEAD~1 --hard &&
+   echo foo >file &&
+   git add file &&
+   git commit -m initial &&
+   echo bar >file &&
+   git stash &&
+   echo baz >file &&
+   test_when_finished "git checkout master" &&
+   test_must_fail git stash branch new_branch stash@{0} &&
+   git rev-parse stash@{0} --
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'stash apply shows status same as git status (relative to 
current directory)' '
git stash clear &&
echo 1 >subdir/subfile1 &&
-- 
2.13.0