| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
interpret_branch_name gets passed a "name" buffer to parse,
along with a "namelen" parameter representing its length. If
"namelen" is zero, we fallback to the NUL-terminated
string-length of "name".
However, it does not necessarily follow that if we have
gotten a non-zero "namelen", it is the NUL-terminated
string-length of "name". E.g., when get_sha1() is parsing
"foo:bar", we will be asked to operate only on the first
three characters.
Yet in interpret_branch_name and its helpers, we use string
functions like strchr() to operate on "name", looking past
the length we were given. This can result in us mis-parsing
object names. We should instead be limiting our search to
"namelen" bytes.
There are three distinct types of object names this patch
addresses:
- The intrepret_empty_at helper uses strchr to find the
next @-expression after our potential empty-at. In an
expression like "@:foo@bar", it erroneously thinks that
the second "@" is relevant, even if we were asked only
to look at the first character. This case is easy to
trigger (and we test it in this patch).
- When finding the initial @-mark for @{upstream}, we use
strchr. This means we might treat "foo:@{upstream}" as
the upstream for "foo:", even though we were asked only
to look at "foo". We cannot test this one in practice,
because it is masked by another bug (which is fixed in
the next patch).
- The interpret_nth_prior_checkout helper did not receive
the name length at all. This turns out not to be a
problem in practice, though, because its parsing is so
limited: it always starts from the far-left of the
string, and will not tolerate a colon (which is
currently the only way to get a smaller-than-strlen
"namelen"). However, it's still worth fixing to make the
code more obviously correct, and to future-proof us
against callers with more exotic buffers.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Typing 'HEAD' is tedious, especially when we can use '@' instead.
The reason for choosing '@' is that it follows naturally from the
ref@op syntax (e.g. HEAD@{u}), except we have no ref, and no
operation, and when we don't have those, it makes sens to assume
'HEAD'.
So now we can use 'git show @~1', and all that goody goodness.
Until now '@' was a valid name, but it conflicts with this idea, so
let's make it invalid. Probably very few people, if any, used this name.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit cdfd94837b27c220f70f032b596ea993d195488f, as it
does not just apply to "@" (and forms with modifiers like @{u}
applied to it), but also affects e.g. "refs/heads/@/foo", which it
shouldn't.
The basic idea of giving a short-hand might be good, and the topic
can be retried later, but let's revert to avoid affecting existing
use cases for now for the upcoming release.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Typing 'HEAD' is tedious, especially when we can use '@' instead.
The reason for choosing '@' is that it follows naturally from the
ref@op syntax (e.g. HEAD@{u}), except we have no ref, and no
operation, and when we don't have those, it makes sens to assume
'HEAD'.
So now we can use 'git show @~1', and all that goody goodness.
Until now '@' was a valid name, but it conflicts with this idea, so
let's make it invalid. Probably very few people, if any, used this name.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All the tests so far check that @{N} is the same as HEAD@{N} (for
positive N). However, this is not always the case; write a couple of
tests for this.
[fc: simplify some wording]
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Add more tests exercising documented functionality.
[fc: commit message and extra tests]
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In some circumstances 'git log' might fail, but not because the @
parsing failed. For example: 'git rev-parse' might succeed and return a
bad object, and then 'git log' would fail.
The layer we want to test is revision parsing, so let's test that
directly.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Some committishes might point to the same commit, but through a
different ref, that's why it's better to check directly for the ref,
rather than the commit message.
We can do that by calling rev-parse --symbolic-full-name, and to
differentiate the old from the new behavior we add an extra argument to
the check() helper.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The test is setting up an upstream branch, but there's a much simpler
way of doing that: git branch -u.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Something like foo@{-1} is nonsensical, as the @{-N} syntax
is reserved for "the Nth last branch", and is not an actual
reflog selector. We should not feed such nonsense to
approxidate at all.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously interpret_branch_name would see @{-1} and stop
parsing, leaving the @{u} as cruft that provoked an error.
Instead, we should recurse if there is more to parse.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
|
Now that we have several different types of @{} syntax, it
is a good idea to test them together, which reveals some
failures.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
