The sub commands '--continue', '--skip' or '--abort' may only be used
standalone according to the documentation. Other options following the
sub command are currently not accepted, but options preceeding them
are. For example, 'git rebase --continue -v' is not accepted, while
'git rebase -v --continue' is. Tighten up the check and allow no other
options when one of these sub commands are used.
Only check that it is standalone for non-interactive rebase for
now. Once the command line processing for interactive rebase has been
replaced by the command line processing in git-rebase.sh, this check
will also apply to interactive rebase.
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning
that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git".
This is useful to
- make sure the test does not fail because of a signal,
e.g. SIGSEGV, and
- advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests.
Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite
of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests
run a series of commands that leads to the single command that
needs to be tested, like this:
test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' '
setup1 &&
setup2 &&
setup3 &&
what is to be tested
'
And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the
point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to
succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are
trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to
check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which
is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands.
This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to
use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is
tested, like this:
test_expect_success 'test title' '
setup1 &&
setup2 &&
setup3 &&
! this command should fail
'
test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that
that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it
currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a
file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can
write a test like this:
test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' '
rm -f bar &&
git foo &&
test -f bar
'
This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead
of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the
outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken".
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The --skip case was handled properly when rebasing without --merge,
but the --continue case was not.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When you have a merge conflict and want to bypass the commit causing it,
you don't want to care about the dirty state of the working tree.
Also, don't git reset --hard HEAD in the rebase-skip test, so that the
lack of support for this is detected.
Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This uses "git-apply --whitespace=strip" to fix whitespace errors that have
crept in to our source files over time. There are a few files that need
to have trailing whitespaces (most notably, test vectors). The results
still passes the test, and build result in Documentation/ area is unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In "git-apply", we have a few sanity checks and heuristics that
expects that the patch fed to us is a unified diff with at least
one line of context.
* When there is no leading context line in a hunk, the hunk
must apply at the beginning of the preimage. Similarly, no
trailing context means that the hunk is anchored at the end.
* We learn a patch deletes the file from a hunk that has no
resulting line (i.e. all lines are prefixed with '-') if it
has not otherwise been known if the patch deletes the file.
Similarly, no old line means the file is being created.
And we declare an error condition when the file created by a
creation patch already exists, and/or when a deletion patch
still leaves content in the file.
These sanity checks are good safety measures, but breaks down
when people feed a diff generated with --unified=0. This was
recently noticed first by Matthew Wilcox and Gerrit Pape.
This adds a new flag, --unified-zero, to allow bypassing these
checks. If you are in control of the patch generation process,
you should not use --unified=0 patch and fix it up with this
flag; rather you should try work with a patch with context. But
if all you have to work with is a patch without context, this
flag may come handy as the last resort.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Now that we control the merge base selection, we won't be forced
into rolling things in that we wanted to skip beforehand.
Also, add a test to ensure this all works as intended.
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Felipe Contreras
Martin von Zweigbergk
Nanako Shiraishi
Stephan Beyer
Junio C Hamano
Johannes Schindelin
Mike Hommey
Junio C Hamano
Eric Wong