Message ID | 11fd5091d61b54d8862ab2e316bbd25fff63ce0f.1704912750.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
Series | Generalize reference locking in tests | expand |
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 06:52:30PM +0000, Justin Tobler via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> > > Some tests set up reference locks by directly creating the lockfile. > While this works for the files reference backend, reftable reference > locks operate differently and are incompatible with this approach. > Generalize reference locking by preparing a reference transaction. As with the first patch, I think we could use d/f conflicts to get the same effect. Perhaps something like this: diff --git a/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh b/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh index df758e187d..7eb0e887e1 100755 --- a/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh +++ b/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh @@ -233,7 +233,8 @@ test_expect_success 'push --atomic fails on server-side errors' ' up="$HTTPD_URL"/smart/atomic-branches.git && # break ref updates for other on the remote site - mkdir "$d/refs/heads/other.lock" && + git -C "$d" update-ref -d refs/heads/other && + git -C "$d" update-ref refs/heads/other/block-me HEAD && # add the new commit to other git branch -f other collateral && @@ -244,12 +245,8 @@ test_expect_success 'push --atomic fails on server-side errors' ' # the new branch should not have been created upstream test_must_fail git -C "$d" show-ref --verify refs/heads/atomic && - # upstream should still reflect atomic2, the last thing we pushed - # successfully - git rev-parse atomic2 >expected && - # ...to other. - git -C "$d" rev-parse refs/heads/other >actual && - test_cmp expected actual && + # upstream should not have updated, as it cannot be written at all. + test_must_fail git -C "$d" rev-parse --verify refs/heads/other && # the new branch should not have been created upstream test_must_fail git -C "$d" show-ref --verify refs/heads/atomic && I do think that the original was slightly more interesting (since we could check that "other" still existed but was not updated), but I think the main point of the test is that "atomic" was not pushed at all. -Peff
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 06:52:30PM +0000, Justin Tobler via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> >> >> Some tests set up reference locks by directly creating the lockfile. >> While this works for the files reference backend, reftable reference >> locks operate differently and are incompatible with this approach. >> Generalize reference locking by preparing a reference transaction. > > As with the first patch, I think we could use d/f conflicts to get the > same effect. Perhaps something like this: Thanks for a great alternative. I agree that avoiding fifo indeed is a better way to go.
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 06:52:30PM +0000, Justin Tobler via GitGitGadget wrote: >> >>> From: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> >>> >>> Some tests set up reference locks by directly creating the lockfile. >>> While this works for the files reference backend, reftable reference >>> locks operate differently and are incompatible with this approach. >>> Generalize reference locking by preparing a reference transaction. >> >> As with the first patch, I think we could use d/f conflicts to get the >> same effect. Perhaps something like this: > > Thanks for a great alternative. I agree that avoiding fifo indeed > is a better way to go. For this patch, in the next version, I have also followed Peff's suggestion to create d/f conflicts to trigger an error condition instead of using fifos. Thanks to everyone for the feedback! Justin On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 12:48 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 06:52:30PM +0000, Justin Tobler via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > >> From: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> > >> > >> Some tests set up reference locks by directly creating the lockfile. > >> While this works for the files reference backend, reftable reference > >> locks operate differently and are incompatible with this approach. > >> Generalize reference locking by preparing a reference transaction. > > > > As with the first patch, I think we could use d/f conflicts to get the > > same effect. Perhaps something like this: > > Thanks for a great alternative. I agree that avoiding fifo indeed > is a better way to go.
diff --git a/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh b/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh index df758e187df..5b94c0b066f 100755 --- a/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh +++ b/t/t5541-http-push-smart.sh @@ -232,8 +232,29 @@ test_expect_success 'push --atomic fails on server-side errors' ' test_config -C "$d" http.receivepack true && up="$HTTPD_URL"/smart/atomic-branches.git && - # break ref updates for other on the remote site - mkdir "$d/refs/heads/other.lock" && + mkfifo in out && + (git -C "$d" update-ref --stdin <in >out &) && + + exec 9>in && + exec 8<out && + test_when_finished "exec 9>&-" && + test_when_finished "exec 8<&-" && + + echo "start" >&9 && + echo "start: ok" >expected && + read line <&8 && + echo "$line" >actual && + test_cmp expected actual && + + echo "update refs/heads/other refs/heads/other" >&9 && + + # Prepare reference transaction on `other` reference to lock it and thus + # break updates on the remote. + echo "prepare" >&9 && + echo "prepare: ok" >expected && + read line <&8 && + echo "$line" >actual && + test_cmp expected actual && # add the new commit to other git branch -f other collateral &&