Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts
Elijah Newren writes: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Elijah Newren writes: >>> When a merge succeeds, we expect the resulting contents to depend only upon the trees and blobs of the branches involved and of their merge base(s). Unfortunately, there are currently about half a dozen cases where the contents of a "successful" merge depend on the relative commit timestamps of the merge bases. Document these with testcases. (This series came out of looking at modifying how file collision conflict types are handled, as discussed at [1]. I discovered these issues while working on that topic.) >>> >>> I have a topic branch for this series but not merged to 'pu' as >>> test-lint gives these: >>> > ... >> >> ... here's a fixup to the topic; as you pointed out, the exact contents >> of the script being written were actually irrelevant; it was just an >> input to a merge. >> >> -- 8< -- >> Subject: [PATCH] fixup! t6036: add a failed conflict detection case: regular >> files, different modes >> > > Does a 'fixup!' commit require a Signed-off-by? Just realized that > this one didn't have it, though I don't know if it's necessary. If it > is: > > Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren Thanks. I queued it separately before running out of time Monday, but will actually squash it in to the main patch.
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Elijah Newren writes: >> >>> When a merge succeeds, we expect the resulting contents to depend only >>> upon the trees and blobs of the branches involved and of their merge >>> base(s). Unfortunately, there are currently about half a dozen cases >>> where the contents of a "successful" merge depend on the relative >>> commit timestamps of the merge bases. Document these with testcases. >>> >>> (This series came out of looking at modifying how file collision >>> conflict types are handled, as discussed at [1]. I discovered these >>> issues while working on that topic.) >> >> I have a topic branch for this series but not merged to 'pu' as >> test-lint gives these: >> ... > > ... here's a fixup to the topic; as you pointed out, the exact contents > of the script being written were actually irrelevant; it was just an > input to a merge. > > -- 8< -- > Subject: [PATCH] fixup! t6036: add a failed conflict detection case: regular > files, different modes > Does a 'fixup!' commit require a Signed-off-by? Just realized that this one didn't have it, though I don't know if it's necessary. If it is: Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:42:04AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > test-lint is supposed to be run automatically as part of "make test" (or > > "make prove"), unless you've specifically disabled it by setting > > TEST_LINT. And it does complain for me with your patches. If it doesn't > > for you, then we have a bug to fix. :) > > Oh, this may be my bad. Years ago someone pointed out that the > testsuite could be run under 'prove', which provided nicer output and > made sure to run the longest tests (e.g. the horrifically slow > t9001-send-email.sh) first. So my test alias is: > >time prove -j7 --timer --state failed,slow,save t[0-9]*.sh :: > "--root=/dev/shm" Heh, OK, that makes sense. > (with possibly different -j settings on different machines) and I just > stopped running make test. Didn't learn about the 'make prove' > target, even though it's apparently now been there for nearly 8 years. I have: GIT_TEST_OPTS = --root=/var/ram/git-tests GIT_PROVE_OPTS = -j16 --state=slow,save DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET = prove in my config.mak. That lets me just do: make test from the top-level to get a build-and-test. It also allows just "make" from the "t" directory to do the right thing. Slightly annoyingly, "make test" in the "t" directory does the wrong thing, which bites me about once a month. ;) -Peff
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:22:29PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > >> Oh, I didn't know about test-lint. Is there a place that documents >> the various checks you run, so I can avoid slowing you down? Ones I >> know about: >> >> Already documented: >> * `make DEVELOPER=1` (from CodingGuidelines) >> * running tests (from SubmittingPatches) >> >> Stuff I've seen you mention in emails over time: >> * linux/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> * git grep -e '\' --and --not -e 'static inline' -- \*.h >> * make -C t/ test-lint > > test-lint is supposed to be run automatically as part of "make test" (or > "make prove"), unless you've specifically disabled it by setting > TEST_LINT. And it does complain for me with your patches. If it doesn't > for you, then we have a bug to fix. :) Oh, this may be my bad. Years ago someone pointed out that the testsuite could be run under 'prove', which provided nicer output and made sure to run the longest tests (e.g. the horrifically slow t9001-send-email.sh) first. So my test alias is: time prove -j7 --timer --state failed,slow,save t[0-9]*.sh :: "--root=/dev/shm" (with possibly different -j settings on different machines) and I just stopped running make test. Didn't learn about the 'make prove' target, even though it's apparently now been there for nearly 8 years. > I won't be surprised, though, if you just ran "./t6036" manually before > sending, since your patches literally didn't touch any other files. That may also be true, though I would have missed it even if I had code changes due to not being aware of 'make prove'. > In theory we could push some of the linting down into the test scripts > themselves (some of it, like the &&-linter, is there already by > necessity). But it might also end up annoying, since usually dropping > down to manual single-test runs means you're trying to debug something, > and extra linting processes could get in the way. > >> Are there others? > > I like: > > make SANITIZE=address,undefined test > > though it's pretty heavy-weight (but not nearly as much as valgrind). > You probably also need BLK_SHA1=Yes, since the default DC_SHA1 has some > unaligned loads that make UBSan complain. We should maybe teach the > Makefile to do that by default. > > I've also been playing with clang's scan-build. It _did_ find a real bug > recently, but it has a bunch of false positives. > > Stefan runs Coverity against pu periodically. IIRC It's a pain to run > yourself, but the shared results can be mailed to you, or you can poke > around at https://scan.coverity.com/projects/git. That _also_ has a ton > of false positives, but it's good about cataloguing them so the periodic > email usually just mentions the new ones. Cool, thanks for the pointers.
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:22:29PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > Oh, I didn't know about test-lint. Is there a place that documents > the various checks you run, so I can avoid slowing you down? Ones I > know about: > > Already documented: > * `make DEVELOPER=1` (from CodingGuidelines) > * running tests (from SubmittingPatches) > > Stuff I've seen you mention in emails over time: > * linux/scripts/checkpatch.pl > * git grep -e '\' --and --not -e 'static inline' -- \*.h > * make -C t/ test-lint test-lint is supposed to be run automatically as part of "make test" (or "make prove"), unless you've specifically disabled it by setting TEST_LINT. And it does complain for me with your patches. If it doesn't for you, then we have a bug to fix. :) I won't be surprised, though, if you just ran "./t6036" manually before sending, since your patches literally didn't touch any other files. In theory we could push some of the linting down into the test scripts themselves (some of it, like the &&-linter, is there already by necessity). But it might also end up annoying, since usually dropping down to manual single-test runs means you're trying to debug something, and extra linting processes could get in the way. > Are there others? I like: make SANITIZE=address,undefined test though it's pretty heavy-weight (but not nearly as much as valgrind). You probably also need BLK_SHA1=Yes, since the default DC_SHA1 has some unaligned loads that make UBSan complain. We should maybe teach the Makefile to do that by default. I've also been playing with clang's scan-build. It _did_ find a real bug recently, but it has a bunch of false positives. Stefan runs Coverity against pu periodically. IIRC It's a pain to run yourself, but the shared results can be mailed to you, or you can poke around at https://scan.coverity.com/projects/git. That _also_ has a ton of false positives, but it's good about cataloguing them so the periodic email usually just mentions the new ones. -Peff
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Elijah Newren writes: > >> When a merge succeeds, we expect the resulting contents to depend only >> upon the trees and blobs of the branches involved and of their merge >> base(s). Unfortunately, there are currently about half a dozen cases >> where the contents of a "successful" merge depend on the relative >> commit timestamps of the merge bases. Document these with testcases. >> >> (This series came out of looking at modifying how file collision >> conflict types are handled, as discussed at [1]. I discovered these >> issues while working on that topic.) > > I have a topic branch for this series but not merged to 'pu' as > test-lint gives these: > > t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh:1222: error: "export FOO=bar" is not portable > (please use FOO=bar && export FOO): echo "export > PATH=~/bin:$PATH" >source_me.bash && > t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh:1227: error: "export FOO=bar" is not portable > (please use FOO=bar && export FOO): echo "export > PATH=~/bin:$PATH" >source_me.bash && > Makefile:77: recipe for target 'test-lint-shell-syntax' failed > make: *** [test-lint-shell-syntax] Error 1 > > Arguably these are false positives because "source_me.bash" file is > a mere payload to go through the merge process to be munged and we > never intend to actually execute its contents with bash, but then > the test payload probably does not even have to be a string that > triggers such a false positive to begin with ;-) Oh, I didn't know about test-lint. Is there a place that documents the various checks you run, so I can avoid slowing you down? Ones I know about: Already documented: * `make DEVELOPER=1` (from CodingGuidelines) * running tests (from SubmittingPatches) Stuff I've seen you mention in emails over time: * linux/scripts/checkpatch.pl * git grep -e '\' --and --not -e 'static inline' -- \*.h * make -C t/ test-lint Are there others? Also, here's a fixup to the topic; as you pointed out, the exact contents of the script being written were actually irrelevant; it was just an input to a merge. -- 8< -- Subject: [PATCH] fixup! t6036: add a failed conflict detection case: regular files, different modes --- t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh b/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh index f8f7b30460..5a8fe061ab 100755 --- a/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh +++ b/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh @@ -1219,12 +1219,12 @@ test_expect_success 'setup conflicting modes for regular file' ' git tag A && git checkout -b B A && - echo "export PATH=~/bin:$PATH" >source_me.bash && + echo "command_to_run" >source_me.bash && git add source_me.bash && git commit -m B && git checkout -b C A && - echo "export PATH=~/bin:$PATH" >source_me.bash && + echo "command_to_run" >source_me.bash && git add source_me.bash && test_chmod +x source_me.bash && git commit -m C && -- 2.18.0.135.gd4ea5491ab
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts
Elijah Newren writes: > SPOILER ALERT: This series contains answers to the "fun puzzle" at > > https://public-inbox.org/git/CABPp-BFc1OLYKzS5rauOehvEugPc0oGMJp-NMEAmVMW7QR=4...@mail.gmail.com/ > > When a merge succeeds, we expect the resulting contents to depend only > upon the trees and blobs of the branches involved and of their merge > base(s). Unfortunately, there are currently about half a dozen cases > where the contents of a "successful" merge depend on the relative > commit timestamps of the merge bases. Document these with testcases. > > (This series came out of looking at modifying how file collision > conflict types are handled, as discussed at [1]. I discovered these > issues while working on that topic.) I have a topic branch for this series but not merged to 'pu' as test-lint gives these: t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh:1222: error: "export FOO=bar" is not portable (please use FOO=bar && export FOO): echo "export PATH=~/bin:$PATH" >source_me.bash && t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh:1227: error: "export FOO=bar" is not portable (please use FOO=bar && export FOO): echo "export PATH=~/bin:$PATH" >source_me.bash && Makefile:77: recipe for target 'test-lint-shell-syntax' failed make: *** [test-lint-shell-syntax] Error 1 Arguably these are false positives because "source_me.bash" file is a mere payload to go through the merge process to be munged and we never intend to actually execute its contents with bash, but then the test payload probably does not even have to be a string that triggers such a false positive to begin with ;-)
