| Message ID | 20200907081739.GB1263923@coredump.intra.peff.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | some minor add--interactive fixes | expand |
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:17:39AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > Our color tests of "git add -p" do something a bit different from how a > normal user would behave: we pretend there's a pager in use, so that Git > thinks it's OK to write color to a non-tty stdout. This comes from > 8539b46534 (t3701: avoid depending on the TTY prerequisite, 2019-12-06), > which allows us to avoid a lot of complicated mock-tty code. > > However, those environment variables also make their way down to > sub-processes of add--interactive, including the "diff-files" we run to > generate the patches. As a result, it thinks it should output color, > too. So in t3701.50, for example, the machine-readable version of the > diff we get unexpectedly has color in it. We fail to parse it as a diff > and think there are zero hunks. By the way, this is an instance of a more generic bug, which is that: git -p my-script will cause any sub-programs of git-my-script to think their stdout is going to a pager, even if my-script redirects them to a file or another pipe. I had a solution long ago in: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20150810052353.GB15441@sigill.intra.peff.net/ but it raises a bunch of interesting portability questions. Since this comes up so rarely, I never really pursued it further. -Peff
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > By the way, this is an instance of a more generic bug, which is that: > > git -p my-script > > will cause any sub-programs of git-my-script to think their stdout is > going to a pager, even if my-script redirects them to a file or another > pipe. > > I had a solution long ago in: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20150810052353.GB15441@sigill.intra.peff.net/ > > but it raises a bunch of interesting portability questions. Since this > comes up so rarely, I never really pursued it further. That indeed is from long ago ;-) and I still kind of like it. Is the issue that some platforms do not even have inum of the "thing" connected to a file descriptor? I think a fallback code for such a system can just return a constant pipe ID to anybody asks, so that an exported GIT_PAGER_PIPE_ID would always match, which gives the behaviour identical to what we currently do with GIT_PAGER_IN_USE, and that would be one way to help those capable of giving useful IDs while not harming others. Thanks.
Hi Peff, ACK on both patches, just one clarification: On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, Jeff King wrote: > [...] > > One could argue that the test isn't very realistic; it's setting up this > "pretend there's a pager" situation to get around the tty restrictions > of the test environment. So one option would be to move back towards > using a real tty. [...] The main reason why we moved away from the "real" TTY is that the TTY we simulate in `t/test-terminal.perl` is not actually real at all on Windows. Instead, it is the Cygwin/MSYS2-emulated version of a PTY, and as a consequence `git.exe` simply has no way of accessing it. Which means that by moving "back towards using a real tty" we would lose all test coverage on Windows, which is not a thought I like to entertain. Ciao, Dscho
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 08:51:31PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > One could argue that the test isn't very realistic; it's setting up this > > "pretend there's a pager" situation to get around the tty restrictions > > of the test environment. So one option would be to move back towards > > using a real tty. [...] > > The main reason why we moved away from the "real" TTY is that the TTY we > simulate in `t/test-terminal.perl` is not actually real at all on Windows. > Instead, it is the Cygwin/MSYS2-emulated version of a PTY, and as a > consequence `git.exe` simply has no way of accessing it. > > Which means that by moving "back towards using a real tty" we would lose > all test coverage on Windows, which is not a thought I like to entertain. Yeah, regressing the improvements done by 8539b46534 (t3701: avoid depending on the TTY prerequisite, 2019-12-06) was definitely part of my motivation, but I guess I didn't spell that out completely. -Peff
diff we get unexpectedly has color in it. We fail to parse it as a diff and think there are zero hunks. The test does still pass, though, because even with zero hunks we'll dump the diff header (and we consider those unparseable bits to be part of the header!), and so the output still has the expected color codes in it. We don't notice that the command was totally broken and failed to apply anything. And in fact we're not really testing what we think we are about the color, either. While add--interactive does correctly show the version we got from running "diff-files --color", we'd also pass the test if we had accidentally shown the machine-readable version, too, since it (erroneously) has color codes in it. One could argue that the test isn't very realistic; it's setting up this "pretend there's a pager" situation to get around the tty restrictions of the test environment. So one option would be to move back towards using a real tty. But the behavior of add--interactive really is user-visible here. If a user, for whatever reason, did run "git --paginate add --patch" (perhaps because their pager is really a filter or something), the command would totally fail to do anything useful. Since we know that we don't want color in this output, let's just make add--interactive more defensive, and say "--no-color" explicitly. It doesn't hurt anything in the common case, but it fixes this odd case and lets our test function properly again. Note that the C builtin run_add_p() already passes --no-color, so it doesn't need a similar fix. That will eventually replace this perl code anyway, but the test change here will be valuable for ensuring that. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> --- Curiously, run_add_p() claims that --no-color is important to override "diff.color = always", but in a quick test that doesn't seem to make any difference. I didn't dig into whether it's possible to trigger or not (either way, defensively using --no-color is a reasonable precaution). git-add--interactive.perl | 2 +- t/t3701-add-interactive.sh | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/git-add--interactive.perl b/git-add--interactive.perl index f36c0078ac..b6cdcfef61 100755 --- a/git-add--interactive.perl +++ b/git-add--interactive.perl @@ -714,7 +714,7 @@ sub parse_diff { if (defined $patch_mode_revision) { push @diff_cmd, get_diff_reference($patch_mode_revision); } - my @diff = run_cmd_pipe("git", @diff_cmd, "--", $path); + my @diff = run_cmd_pipe("git", @diff_cmd, qw(--no-color --), $path); my @colored = (); if ($diff_use_color) { my @display_cmd = ("git", @diff_cmd, qw(--color --), $path); diff --git a/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh b/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh index 67d1c36cef..1590cf6b98 100755 --- a/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh +++ b/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh @@ -582,6 +582,7 @@ test_expect_success 'diffs can be colorized' ' echo content >test && printf y >y && force_color git add -p >output 2>&1 <y && + git diff-files --exit-code && # We do not want to depend on the exact coloring scheme # git uses for diffs, so just check that we saw some kind of color.