At GitHub, we've got a real-world repository that has been triggering
failures of the form:
git: merge-ort.c:3007: process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && !newinfo->merged.clean' failed.
which comes from the line:
VERIFY_CI(newinfo);
Unfortunately, this one has been quite complex to unravel, and is a
bit complex to explain. So, I'm going to carefully try to explain each
relevant piece needed to understand the fix, then carefully build up
from a simple testcase to some of the relevant testcases.
== New special case we need to consider ==
Rename pairs in the diffcore machinery connect the source path of a
rename with the destination path of a rename. Since we have rename
pairs to consider on both sides of history since the merge base,
merging has to consider a few special cases of possible overlap:
A) two rename pairs having the same target path
B) two rename pairs having the same source path
C) the source path of one rename pair being the target path of a
different rename pair
Some of these came up often enough that we gave them names:
A) a rename/rename(2to1) conflict (looks similar to an add/add conflict)
B) a rename/rename(1to2) conflict, which represents the same path being
renamed differently on the two sides of history
C) not yet named
merge-ort is well-prepared to handle cases (A) and (B), as was
merge-recursive (which was merge-ort's predecessor). Case (C) was
briefly considered during the years of merge-recursive maintenance,
but the full extent of support it got was a few FIXME/TODO comments
littered around the code highlighting some of the places that would
probably need to be fixed to support it. When I wrote merge-ort I
ignored case (C) entirely, since I believed that case (C) was only
possible if we were to support break detection during merges. Not
only had break detection never been supported by any merge algorithm,
I thought break detection wasn't worth the effort to support in a
merge algorithm. However, it turns out that case (C) can be triggered
without break detection, if there's enough moving pieces.
Before I dive into how to trigger case (C) with directory renames plus
other renames, it might be helpful to use a simpler example with break
detection first. And before we get to that it may help to explain
some more basics of handling renames in the merge algorithm. So, let
me first backup and provide a quick refresher on each of
* handling renames
* what break detection would mean, if supported in merging
* handling directory renames
From there, I'll build up from a basic directory rename detection case
to one that triggers a failure currently.
== Handling renames ==
In the merge machinery when we have a rename of a path A -> B,
processing that rename needs to remove path A, and make sure that path B
has the relevant information. Note that if the content was also
modified on both sides, this may mean that we have 3 different stages
that need to be stored at path B instead of having some stored at path
A.
Having all stages stored at path B makes it much easier for users to
investigate and resolve the content conflict associated with a renamed
path. For example:
* "git status" doesn't have to figure out how to list paths A & B and
attempt to connect them for users; it can just list path B.
* Users can use "git ls-files -u B" (instead of trying to find the
previous name of the file so they can list both, i.e. "git ls-files
-u A B")
* Users can resolve via "git add B" (without needing to "git rm A")
== What break detection would mean ==
If break detection were supported, we might have cases where A -> B
*and* C -> A, meaning that both rename pairs might believe they need to
update A. In particular, the processing of A -> B would need to be
careful to not clear out all stages of A and mark it resolved, while
both renames would need to figure out which stages of A belong with A
and which belong with B, so that both paths have the right stages
associated with them.
merge-ort (like merge-recursive before it) makes no attempt to handle
break detection; it runs with break detection turned off. It would
need to be retrofitted to handle such cases.
== Directory rename detection ==
If one side of history renames directory D/ -> E/, and the other side of
history adds new files to D/, then directory rename detection notices
and suggests moving those new files to E/. A similar thing is done for
paths renamed into D/, causing them to be transitively renamed into E/.
The default in the merge machinery is to report a conflict whenever a
directory rename might modify the location of a path, so that users can
decide whether they wanted the original path or the
directory-rename-induced location. However, that means the default
codepath still runs through all the directory rename detection logic, it
just supplements it with providing conflict notices when it is done.
== Building up increasingly complex testcases ==
I'll start with a really simple directory rename example, and then
slowly add twists that explain new pieces until we get to the
problematic cases:
=== Testcase 1 ===
Let's start with a concrete example, where particular files/directories of
interest that exist or are changed on each side are called out:
Original: <nothing of note>
our side: rename B/file -> C/file
their side: rename C/ -> A/
For this case, we'd expect to see the original B/file appear not at
C/file but at A/file.
(We would also expect a conflict notice that the user will want to
choose between C/file and A/file, but I'm going to ignore conflict
notices from here on by assuming merge.directoryRenames is set to
`true` rather than `conflict`; the only difference that assumption
makes is whether that makes the merge be considered to be conflicted
and whether it prints a conflict notice; what is written to the index
or working directory is unchanged.)
=== Testcase 2 ===
Modify testcase 1 by having A/file exist from the start:
Original: A/file exists
our side: rename B/file -> C/file
their side: rename C/ -> A/
In such a case, to avoid user confusion at what looks kind of like an
add/add conflict (even though the original path at A/file was not added
by either side of the merge), we turn off directory rename detection for
this path and print a "in the way" warning to the user:
CONFLICT (implicit dir rename): Existing file/dir ... in the way ...
The testcases in section 5 of t6423 explore these in more detail.
=== Testcase 3 ===
Let's modify testcase 1 in a slightly different way: have A/file be
added by their side rather than it already existing.
Original: <nothing of note>
our side: rename B/file -> C/file
their side: rename C/ -> A/
add A/file
In this case, the directory rename detection basically transforms our
side's original B/file -> C/file into a B/file -> A/file, and so we
get a rename/add conflict, with one version of A/file coming from the
renamed file, and another coming from the new A/file, each stored as
stages 2 and 3 in conflicts. This kind of add/add conflict is perhaps
slightly more complex than a regular add/add conflict, but with the
printed messages it makes sense where it came from and we have
different stages of the file to work with to resolve the conflict.
=== Testcase 4 ===
Let's do something similar to testcase 3, but have the opposite side of
history add A/file:
Original: <nothing of note>
our side: rename B/file -> C/file
add A/file
their side: rename C/ -> A/
Now if we allow directory rename detection to modify C/file to A/file,
then we also get a rename/add conflict, but in this case we'd need both
higher order stages being recorded on side 2, which makes no sense. The
index can't store multiple stage 2 entries, and even if we could, it
would probably be confusing for users to work with. So, similar to what
we do when there was an A/file in the original version, we simply turn
off directory rename detection for cases like this and provide the "in
the way" CONFLICT notice to the user.
=== Testcase 5 ===
We're slowly getting closer. Let's mix it up by having A/file exist at
the beginning but not exist on their side:
original: A/file exists
our side: rename B/file -> C/file
their side: rename C/ -> A/
rename A/file -> D/file
For this case, you could say that since A/file -> D/file, it's no longer
in the way of C/file being moved by directory rename detection to
A/file. But that would give us a case where A/file is both the source
and the target of a rename, similar to break detection, which the code
isn't currently equipped to handle.
This is not yet the case that causes current failures; to the current
code, this kind of looks like testcase 4 in that A/file is in the way
on our side (since A/file was in the original and was umodified by our
side). So, it results in a "in the way" notification with directory
rename detection being turned off for A/file so that B/file ends up at
C/file.
Perhaps the resolution could be improved in the future, but our "in
the way" checks prevented such problems by noticing that A/file exists
on our side and thus turns off directory rename detection from
affecting C/file's location. So, while the merge result could be
perhaps improved, the fact that this is currently handled by giving
the user an "in the way" message gives the user a chance to resolve
and prevents the code from tripping itself up.
=== Testcase 6 ===
Let's modify testcase 5 a bit more, to also delete A/file on our side:
original: A/file exists
our side: rename B/file -> C/file
delete A/file
their side: rename C/ -> A/
rename A/file -> D/file
Now the "in the way" logic doesn't detect that there's an A/file in
the way (neither side has an A/file anymore), so it's fine to
transitively rename C/file further to A/file...except that we end up
with A/file being both the source of one rename, and the target of a
different rename. Each rename pair tries to handle the resolution of
the source and target paths of its own rename. But when we go to
process the second rename pair in process_renames(), we do not expect
either the source or the destination to be marked as handled already;
so, when we hit the sanity checks that these are not handled:
VERIFY_CI(oldinfo);
VERIFY_CI(newinfo);
then one of these is going to throw an assertion failure since the
previous rename pair already marked both of its paths as handled.
This will give us an error of the form:
git: merge-ort.c:3007: process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && !newinfo->merged.clean' failed.
This is the failure we're currently triggering, and it fundamentally
depends on:
* a path existing in the original
* that original path being removed or renamed on *both* sides
* some kind of directory rename moving some *other* path into that
original path
This was added as testcase 12q in t6423.
=== Testcase 7 ===
Bonus bug found while investigating!
Let's go back to the comparison between testcases 2 & 3, and set up a
file present on their side that we need to consider:
Original: A/file exists
our side: rename B/file -> C/file
rename A/file -> D/file
their side: rename C/ -> A/
Here, there is no A/file in the way on our side like testcase 4.
There is an A/file present on their side like testcase 3, which was an
add/add conflict, but that's associated with the file be renamed to
D/file. So, that really shouldn't be an add/add conflict because we
instead want all modes of the original A/file to be transported to
D/file.
Unfortunately, the current code kind of treats it like an add/add
conflict instead...but even worse. There is also a valid mode for
A/file in the original, which normally goes to stage 1. However, an
add/add conflict should be represented in the index with no mode at
stage 1 (for the original side), only modes at stages 2 and 3 (for our
and their side), so for an add/add we'd expect that mode for A/file in
the original version to be cleared out (or be transported to D/file).
Unfortunately, the code currently leaves not only the stage 3 entry
for A/file intact, it also leaves the stage 1 entry for A/file. This
results in `git ls-files -u A/file` output of the form:
100644 d00491fd7e5bb6fa28c517a0bb32b8b506539d4d 1 A/file
100644 0cfbf08886fca9a91cb753ec8734c84fcbe52c9f 2 A/file
100644 d00491fd7e5bb6fa28c517a0bb32b8b506539d4d 3 A/file
This would likely cause users to believe this isn't an add/add
conflict; rather, this would lead them to believe that A/file was only
modified on our side and that therefore it should not have been a
conflict in the first place. And while resolving the conflict in
favor of our side is the correct resolution (because stages 1 and 3
should have been cleared out in the first place), this is certainly
likely to cause confusion for anyone attempting to investigate why
this path was marked as conflicted.
This was added as testcase 12p in t6423.
== Attempted solutions that I discarded ==
1) For each side of history, create a strset of the sources of each
rename on the other side of history. Then when using directory
renames to modify existing renames, verify that we aren't renaming
to a source of another rename.
Unfortunately, the "relevant renames" optimization in merge-ort
means we often don't detect renames -- we just see a delete and an
add -- which is easy to forget and makes debugging testcases harder,
but it also turns out that this solution in insufficient to solve
the related problems in the area (more on that below).
2) Modify the code to be aware of the possibility of renaming to
the source of another side's rename, and make all the conflict
resolution logic for each case (including existing
rename/rename(2to1) and rename/rename(1to2) cases) handle the
additional complexity. It turns out there was much more code to
audit than I wanted, for a really niche case. I didn't like how
many changes were needed, and aborted.
== Solution ==
We do not want the stages of unrelated files appearing at the same path
in the index except when dealing with an add/add conflict. While we
previously handled this for stages 2 & 3, we also need to worry about
stage 1. So check for a stage 1 index entry being in the way of a
directory rename.
However, if we can detect that the stage 1 index entry is actually from
a related file due to a directory-rename-causes-rename-to-self
situation, then we can allow the stage 1 entry to remain.
From this wording, you may note that it's not just rename cases that
are a problem; bugs could be triggered with directory renames vs simple
adds. That leads us to...
== Testcases 8+ ==
Another bonus bug, found via understanding our final solutions (and the
failure of our first attempted solution)!
Let's tweak testcase 7 a bit:
Original: A/file exists
our side: delete A/file
add -> C/file
their side: delete A/file
rename C/ -> A/
Here, there doesn't seem to be a big problem. Sure C/file gets modified
via the directory rename of C/ -> A/ so that it becomes A/file, but
there's no file in the way, right? Actually, here we have a problem
that the stage 1 entry of A/file would be combined with the stage 2
entry of C/file, and make it look like a modify/delete conflict.
Perhaps there is some extra checking that could be added to the code to
make it attempt to clear out the stage 1 entry of A/file, but the
various rename-to-self-via-directory-rename testcases make that a bit
more difficult. For now, it's easier to just treat this as a
path-in-the-way situation and not allow the directory rename to modify
C/file.
That sounds all well and good, but it does have an interesting side
effect. Due to the "relevant renames" optimizations in merge-ort (i.e.
only detect the renames you need), 100% renames whose files weren't
modified on the other side often go undetected. This means that if we
modify this testcase slightly to:
Original: A/file exists
our side: A/file -> C/file
their side: rename C/ -> A/
Then although this looks like where the directory rename just moves
C/file back to A/file and there's no problem, we may not detect the
A/file -> C/file rename. Instead it will look like a deletion of A/file
and an addition of C/file. The directory rename then appears to be
moving C/file to A/file, which is on top of an "unrelated" file (or at
least a file it doesn't know is related). So, we will report
path-in-the-way conflicts now in cases where we didn't before. That's
better than silently and accidentally combining stages of unrelated
files and making them look like a modify/delete; users can investigate
the reported conflict and simply resolve it.
This means we tweak the expected solution for testcases 12i, 12j, and
12k. (Those three tests are basically the same test repeated three
times, but I was worried when I added those that subtle differences in
parent/child, sibling/sibling, and toplevel directories might mess up
how rename-to-self testcases actually get handled.)
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We have multiple bugs here -- accidental silent file deletion,
accidental silent file retention for files that should be deleted,
and incorrect number of entries left in the index.
The series merged at commit d3b88be1b4 (Merge branch
'en/merge-dir-rename-corner-case-fix', 2021-07-16) introduced testcase
12i-12k in t6423 which checked for rename-to-self cases, and fixed bugs
that merge-ort and merge-recursive had with these testcases. At the
time, I noted that merge-ort had one bug for these cases, while
merge-recursive had two. It turns out that merge-ort did in fact have
another bug, but the "relevant renames" optimizations were masking it.
If we modify testcase 12i from t6423 to modify the file in the commit
that renames it (but only modify it enough that it can still be detected
as a rename), then we can trigger silent deletion of the file.
Tweak testcase 12i slightly to make the file in question have more than
one line in it. This leaves the testcase intact other than changing the
initial contents of this one file. The purpose of this tweak is to
minimize the changes between this testcase and a new one that we want to
add. Then duplicate testcase 12i as 12i2, changing it so that it adds a
single line to the file in question when it is renamed; testcase 12i2
then serves as a testcase for this merge-ort bug that I previously
overlooked.
Further, commit 98a1a00d53 (t6423: add a testcase causing a failed
assertion in process_renames, 2025-03-06), fixed an issue with
rename-to-self but added a new testcase, 12n, that only checked for
whether the merge ran to completion. A few commits ago, we modified
this test to check for the number of entries in the index -- but noted
that the number was wrong. And we also noted a
silently-keep-instead-of-delete bug at the same time in the new testcase
12n2.
In summary, we have the following bugs with rename-to-self cases:
* silent deletion of file expected to be kept (t6423 testcase 12i2)
* silent retention of file expected to be removed (t6423 testcase 12n2)
* wrong number of extries left in the index (t6423 testcase 12n)
All of these bugs arise because in a rename-to-self case, when we have a
rename A->B, both A and B name the same file. The code in
process_renames() assumes A & B are different, and tries to move the
higher order stages and file contents so that they are associated just
with the new path, but the assumptions of A & B being different can
cause A to be deleted when it's not supposed to be or mark B as resolved
and kept in place when it's supposed to be deleted. Since A & B are
already the same path in the rename-to-self case, simply skip the steps
in process_renames() for such files to fix these bugs.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Because merge-ort is dealing with potentially all the pathnames in the
repository, it sometimes needs to do an awful lot of string comparisons.
Because of this, struct merge_options_internal's path member was
envisioned from the beginning to contain an interned value for every
path in order to allow us to compare strings via pointer comparison
instead of using strcmp. See
* 5b59c3db05 (merge-ort: setup basic internal data structures,
2020-12-13)
* f591c47246 (merge-ort: copy and adapt merge_3way() from
merge-recursive.c, 2021-01-01)
for some of the early comments.
However, the original comment was slightly misleading when it switched
from mentioning paths to only mentioning directories. Fix that, and
while at it also point to an example in the code which applies the extra
needed care to permit the pointer comparison optimization.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 806f83287f (t6423: test directory renames causing
rename-to-self, 2021-06-30) introduced testcase 12i-12k but omitted
staging one of the files and copy-pasted that mistake to the other
tests. This means the merge runs with an unstaged change, even though
that isn't related to what is being tested and makes the test look more
complicated than it is.
The cover letter for the series associated with the above commit (see
Message-ID: pull.1039.git.git.1624727121.gitgitgadget@gmail.com) noted
that these testcases triggered two bugs in merge-recursive but only one
in merge-ort; in merge-recursive these testcases also triggered a
silent deletion of the file in question when it shouldn't be deleted.
What I didn't realize at the time was that the deletion bug in merge-ort
was merely being sidestepped by the "relevant renames" optimization but
can actually be triggered. A subsequent commit will deal with that
additional bug, but it was complicated by the mistaken forgotten
staging, so this commit first fixes that issue.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When commit 98a1a00d53 (t6423: add a testcase causing a failed
assertion in process_renames, 2025-03-06) was added, I tweaked
the commit message, and moved the test into t6423. However, that
still left two other things missing that made this test unlike the
others in the same testfile:
* It didn't have an English description of the test setup like
all other tests in t6423
* It didn't check that the right number of files were present at
the end
The former issue is a minor detail that isn't that critical, but the
latter feels more important. If it had been done, I might have noticed
another bug. In particular, this testcase involves
Side A: rename world -> tools/world
and
Side B: rename tools/ -> <the toplevel>
Side B: remove world
The tools/ -> <toplevel> rename turns the world -> tools/world rename
into world -> world, i.e. a rename-to-self case. But, it's a path
conflict because merge.directoryRenames defaults to false. There's
no content conflict because Side A didn't modify world, so we should
just take the content of world from Side B -- i.e. delete it. So, we
have a conflict on the path, but not on its content. We could consider
letting the content trump since it is unconflicted, but if we are going
to leave a conflict, it should certainly represent that 'world' existed
both in the base version and on Side A. Currently it doesn't.
Add a description of this test, add some checking of the number of
entries in the index at the end of the merge, and mark the test as
expecting to fail for now. A subsequent commit will fix this bug.
While at it, I found another related bug from a nearly identical setup
but setting merge.directoryRenames=true. Copy testcase 12n into 12n2,
changing it to use merge instead of cherry-pick, and turn on directory
renames for this test. In this case, since there is no content conflict
and no path conflict, it should be okay to delete the file.
Unfortunately, the code resolves without conflict but silently leaves
world despite the fact it should be deleted. It might also be okay if
the code spuriously thought there was a modify/delete conflict here;
that would at least notify users to look closer and then when they
notice there was no change since the base version, they can easily
resolve. A conflict notice is much better than silently providing the
wrong resolution. Cover this with the 12n2 testcase, which for now is
marked as expecting to fail as well.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
check_for_directory_rename() had a weirdly coded check for whether a
strmap contained a certain key. Replace the temporary variable and call
to strmap_get_entry() with the more natural strmap_contains() call.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In commit 919df31955 (Collect merge-related tests to t64xx,
2020-08-10), merge related tests were moved from t60xx to t64xx. Some
comments in merge-ort relating to some tricky code referenced specific
testcases within certain testfiles for additional information, but
referred to their historical testfile names; update the testfile names
to mention their modern location.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Fixes for GitHub Actions Coverity job.
* js/github-ci-win-coverity-fix:
ci(coverity): output the build log upon error
ci(coverity): fix building on Windows
Revert a botched bswap.h change that broke ntohll() functions on
big-endian systems with __builtin_bswap32/64().
* ss/revert-builtin-bswap-stuff:
Revert "bswap.h: add support for built-in bswap functions"
Recently generating the version-def.h file and the config-list.h
file have been updated, which broke versions of "sed" that do not
want to be fed a file that ends with an incomplete line, and/or that
do not understand the more recent "-E" option to use extended
regular expression.
Fix them in response to a build-failure reported on Solaris boxes.
cf. https://lore.kernel.org/git/09f954b8-d9c3-418f-ad4b-9cb9b063f4ae@comstyle.com/
Reported-by: Brad Smith <brad@comstyle.com>
Reviewed-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since 6547d1c9 (bswap.h: add support for built-in bswap
functions, 2025-04-23) tweaked the way the bswap32/64 macros are
defined, on platforms with __builtin_bswap32/64 supported, the
bswap32/64 macros are defined even on big endian platforms.
However the rest of this file assumes that bswap32/64() are defined
ONLY on little endian machines and uses that assumption to redefine
ntohl/ntohll macros. The said commit broke t4014-format-patch.sh test,
among many others on s390x.
Revert the commit.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
• Replace with phrases that are more standard (“all-or-nothing”
instead of “-none”)
• Add coordinating words that make it less likely for you to trip
over the sentence (“*that* "gc" can do”)
• Use “SMTP” instead of both SMTP and smtp
• Don’t mention `git fsck --reference` since the previous release
was not affected by this minor bug. Also say “errored out” since
the git-refs(1) bug was there in v2.48.0 as well
• Use the more widespread “linked” instead of “secondary worktree”
Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It is quite helpful to know what Coverity said, exactly, in case it
fails to analyze the code.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When I added the Coverity workflow in a56b6230d0 (ci: add a GitHub
workflow to submit Coverity scans, 2023-09-25), I merely converted an
Azure Pipeline definition that had been running successfully for ages.
In the meantime, the current Coverity documentation describes a very
different way to install the analysis tool, recommending to add the
`bin/` directory to the _end_ of `PATH` (when originally, IIRC, it was
recommended to add it to the _beginning_ of the `PATH`).
This is crucial! The reason is that the current incarnation of the
Windows variant of Coverity's analysis tools come with a _lot_ of DLL
files in their `bin/` directory, some of them interferring rather badly
with the `gcc.exe` in Git for Windows' SDK that we use to run the
Coverity build. The symptom is a cryptic error message:
make: *** [Makefile:2960: headless-git.o] Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
D:\git-sdk-64-minimal\mingw64\bin\windres.exe: preprocessing failed.
make: *** [Makefile:2679: git.res] Error 1
make: *** [Makefile:2893: git.o] Error 1
make: *** [Makefile:2893: builtin/add.o] Error 1
Attempting to detect unconfigured compilers in build
|0----------25-----------50----------75---------100|
****************************************************
Warning: Build command make.exe exited with code 2. Please verify that the build completed successfully.
Warning: Emitted 0 C/C++ compilation units (0%) successfully
0 C/C++ compilation units (0%) are ready for analysis
For more details, please look at:
D:/a/git/git/cov-int/build-log.txt
The log (which the workflow is currently not configured to reveal) then
points out that the `windows.h` header cannot be found, which is _still_
not very helpful. The underlying root cause is that the `gcc.exe` in Git
for Windows' SDK determines the location of the header files via the
location of certain DLL files, and finding the "wrong" ones first on the
`PATH` misleads that logic.
Let's fix this problem by following Coverity's current recommendation
and append the `bin/` directory in which `cov-int` can be found to the
_end_ of `PATH`.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Tests that compare $HOME and $(pwd), which should be the same
directory unless the tests chdir's around, would fail when the user
enters the test directory via symbolic links, which has been
corrected.
* mm/test-in-absolute-home:
t: run tests from a normalized working directory
Adjust to newer version of libcURL.
* jk/curl-easy-setopt-typefix:
curl: fix symbolic constant typechecks with curl_easy_setopt()
curl: fix integer variable typechecks with curl_easy_setopt()
curl: fix integer constant typechecks with curl_easy_setopt()
As of Homebrew's update to cURL v8.14.0, there are new compile errors to
be observed in the `osx-gcc` job of Git's CI builds:
In file included from http.h:8,
from imap-send.c:36:
In function 'setup_curl',
inlined from 'curl_append_msgs_to_imap' at imap-send.c:1460:9,
inlined from 'cmd_main' at imap-send.c:1581:9:
/usr/local/Cellar/curl/8.14.0/include/curl/typecheck-gcc.h:50:15: error: call to '_curl_easy_setopt_err_long' declared with attribute warning: curl_easy_setopt expects a long argument [-Werror=attribute-warning]
50 | _curl_easy_setopt_err_long(); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/usr/local/Cellar/curl/8.14.0/include/curl/curl.h:54:7: note: in definition of macro 'CURL_IGNORE_DEPRECATION'
54 | statements \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
imap-send.c:1423:9: note: in expansion of macro 'curl_easy_setopt'
1423 | curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_PORT, srvc->port);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[... many more instances of nearly identical warnings...]
See for example this CI workflow run:
https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/15454602308/job/43504278284#step:4:307
The most likely explanation is the entry "typecheck-gcc.h: fix the
typechecks" in cURL's release notes (https://curl.se/ch/8.14.0.html).
Nearly identical compile errors afflicted recently-updated Debian
setups, which have been addressed by `jk/curl-easy-setopt-typefix`.
However, on macOS Git is built with different build options, which
uncovered more instances of `int` values that need to be cast to
constants, which were not covered by 6f11c42e8e (curl: fix integer
constant typechecks with curl_easy_setopt(), 2025-06-04). Let's
explicitly convert even those remaining `int` constants in
`curl_easy_setopt()` calls to `long` parameters.
In addition to looking at the compile errors of the `osx-gcc` job, I
verified that there are no other instances of the same issue that need
to be handled in this manner (and that might not be caught by our CI
builds because of yet other build options that might skip those code
parts), I ran the following command and inspected all 23 results
manually to ensure that the fix is now actually complete:
git grep -n curl_easy_setopt |
grep -ve ',.*, *[A-Za-z_"&]' \
-e ',.*, *[-0-9]*L)' \
-e ',.*,.* (long)'
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 2cc5b0facf (git-gui: extract script to generate "tclIndex",
2025-03-11) converted commands in a Makefile rule to a shell script.
In this process, the Makefile variable $@ had to be replaced by the
file name that it represents, 'lib/tclIndex'. However, the occurrence
in `rm -f $@` was missed. In a shell script, $@ expands to all
command line arguments, which happen to be the source files lib/*.tcl
in this case. Needless to say that we do not want to remove source
files during a build. Replace $@ by the intended 'lib/tclIndex'.
Reported-by: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
In the GitHub workflow used in Git's CI builds, the `vs test` jobs use a
subset of a specific revision of Git for Windows' SDK to run Git's test
suite. This revision is validated by another CI workflow to ensure that
said revision _can_ run Git's test suite successfully, skipping buggy
updates in Git for Windows' SDK.
The `win+Meson test` jobs do things differently, quite differently. They
use the Bash of the Git for Windows version that is installed on the
runners to run Git's test suite.
This difference has consequences.
When 68cb0b5253 (builtin/receive-pack: add option to skip connectivity
check, 2025-05-20) introduced a test case that uses `tee <file> | git
receive-pack` as `--receive-pack` parameter (imitating an existing
pattern in the same test script), it hit just the sweet spot to trigger
a bug in the MSYS2 runtime shipped in Git for Windows v2.49.0. This
version is the one currently installed on GitHub's runners.
The problem is that the `git receive-pack` process finishes while the
`tee` process does not need to write anything anymore and therefore does
not receive an EOF. Instead, it should receive a SIGPIPE, but the bug in
the MSYS2 runtime prevents that from working as intended. As a
consequence, the `tee` process waits for more input from the `git.exe
send-pack` process but none is coming, and the test script patiently
waits until the 6h timeout hits.
Only every once in a while, the `git receive-pack` process manages to
send an EOF to the `tee` process and no hang occurs. Therefore, the
problem can be worked around by cancelling the clearly-hanging job after
twenty or so minutes and re-running it, repeating the process about half
a dozen times, until the hang was successfully avoided.
This bug in the MSYS2 runtime has been fixed in the meantime, which is
the reason why the same test case causes no problems in the `win test`
and the `vs test` jobs.
This will continue to be the case until the Git for Windows version on
the GitHub runners is upgraded to a version that distributes a newer
MSYS2 runtime version. However, as of time of writing, this _is_ the
latest Git for Windows version, and will be for another 1.5 weeks, until
Git v2.50.0 is scheduled to appear (and shortly thereafter Git for
Windows v2.50.0). Traditionally it takes a while before the runners pick
up the new version.
We could just wait it out, six hours at a time.
Here, I opt for an alternative: Detect the buggy MSYS2 runtime and
simply skip the test case. It's not like the `receive-pack` test cases
are specific to Windows, and even then, to my chagrin the CI runs in
git-for-windows/git spend around ten hours of compute time each and
every time to run the entire test suite on all the platforms, even the
tests that cover cross-platform code, and for Windows alone we do that
three times: with GCC, with MSVC, and with MSVC via Meson. Therefore, I
deem it more than acceptable to skip this test case in one of those
matrices.
For good luck, also the preceding test case is skipped in that scenario,
as it uses the same `--receive-pack=tee <file> | git receive-pack`
pattern, even though I never observed that test case to hang in
practice.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As with the previous two commits, we should be passing long integers,
not regular ones, to curl_easy_setopt(), and compiling against curl 8.14
loudly complains if we don't.
This patch catches the remaining cases, which are ones where we pass
curl's own symbolic constants. We'll cast them to long manually in each
call.
It seems kind of weird to me that curl doesn't define these constants as
longs, since the point of them is to pass to curl_easy_setopt(). But in
the curl documentation and examples, they clearly show casting them as
part of the setopt calls. It may be that there is some reason not to
push the type into the macro, like backwards compatibility. I didn't
dig, as it doesn't really matter: we have to follow what existing curl
versions ask for anyway.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As discussed in the previous commit, we should be passing long integers,
not regular ones, to curl_easy_setopt(), and compiling against curl 8.14
loudly complains if we don't.
That patch fixed integer constants by adding an "L". This one deals with
actual variables.
Arguably these variables could just be declared as "long" in the first
place. But it's actually kind of awkward due to other code which uses
them:
- port is conceptually a short, and we even call htons() on it (though
weirdly it is defined as a regular int).
- ssl_verify is conceptually a bool, and we assign to it from
git_config_bool().
So I think we could probably switch these out for longs without hurting
anything, but it just feels a bit weird. Doubly so because if you don't
set USE_CURL_FOR_IMAP_SEND set, then the current types are fine!
So let's just cast these to longs in the curl calls, which makes what's
going on obvious. There aren't that many spots to modify (and as you can
see from the context, we already have some similar casts).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The curl documentation specifies that curl_easy_setopt() takes either:
...a long, a function pointer, an object pointer or a curl_off_t,
depending on what the specific option expects.
But when we pass an integer constant like "0", it will by default be a
regular non-long int. This has always been wrong, but seemed to work in
practice (I didn't dig into curl's implementation to see whether this
might actually be triggering undefined behavior, but it seems likely and
regardless we should do what the docs say).
This is especially important since curl has a type-checking macro that
causes building against curl 8.14 to produce many warnings. The specific
commit is due to their 79b4e56b3 (typecheck-gcc.h: fix the typechecks,
2025-04-22). Curiously, it does only seem to trigger when compiled with
-O2 for me.
We can fix it by just marking the constants with a long "L".
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
