[PATCH 1/7] Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401

[PATCH 1/7] Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401

[Shawn O. Pearce]

We only care about getting what should be an empty string and
sending it to a file, without a trailing LF, so the empty string
translates into a 0 byte file.  Earlier when I originally wrote
these lines Mac OS X allowed the format string of printf to be
the empty string, but more recent versions appear to have been
'improved' with error messages if the format is not given.

This may cause problems if we ever wind up with changes to the hook
tests.  A minor cleanup makes the test more safe on all systems,
by conforming to accepted printf conventions.

Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
---
 t/t5401-update-hooks.sh |    8 ++++----
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh b/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
index 3eea306..9734fc5 100755
--- a/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
+++ b/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ test_expect_success setup '
 
 cat >victim/.git/hooks/pre-receive <<'EOF'
 #!/bin/sh
-printf "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args
+printf %s "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args
 cat - >$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.stdin
 echo STDOUT pre-receive
 echo STDERR pre-receive >&2
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ chmod u+x victim/.git/hooks/pre-receive
 cat >victim/.git/hooks/update <<'EOF'
 #!/bin/sh
 echo "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/update.args
-read x; printf "$x" >$GIT_DIR/update.stdin
+read x; printf %s "$x" >$GIT_DIR/update.stdin
 echo STDOUT update $1
 echo STDERR update $1 >&2
 test "$1" = refs/heads/master || exit
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ chmod u+x victim/.git/hooks/update
 
 cat >victim/.git/hooks/post-receive <<'EOF'
 #!/bin/sh
-printf "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/post-receive.args
+printf %s "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/post-receive.args
 cat - >$GIT_DIR/post-receive.stdin
 echo STDOUT post-receive
 echo STDERR post-receive >&2
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ chmod u+x victim/.git/hooks/post-receive
 cat >victim/.git/hooks/post-update <<'EOF'
 #!/bin/sh
 echo "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/post-update.args
-read x; printf "$x" >$GIT_DIR/post-update.stdin
+read x; printf %s "$x" >$GIT_DIR/post-update.stdin
 echo STDOUT post-update
 echo STDERR post-update >&2
 EOF
-- 
1.5.4.rc5.1126.g6ba14

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401

[Junio C Hamano]

"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:

> We only care about getting what should be an empty string and
> sending it to a file, without a trailing LF, so the empty string
> translates into a 0 byte file.  Earlier when I originally wrote
> these lines Mac OS X allowed the format string of printf to be
> the empty string, but more recent versions appear to have been
> 'improved' with error messages if the format is not given.

That sounds like a bug to me.

> diff --git a/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh b/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
> index 3eea306..9734fc5 100755
> --- a/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
> +++ b/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ test_expect_success setup '
>  
>  cat >victim/.git/hooks/pre-receive <<'EOF'
>  #!/bin/sh
> -printf "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args
> +printf %s "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args

Do you really mean this? "printf %s 1 2 3" writes "123" without
terminating LF.  You seem to check only for size but to be
reusable you might want to use something like:

	printf '%s\n' "$@"

Likewise for post-receive.args.

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401

[Shawn O. Pearce]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> > diff --git a/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh b/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
> > index 3eea306..9734fc5 100755
> > --- a/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
> > +++ b/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
> > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ test_expect_success setup '
> >  
> >  cat >victim/.git/hooks/pre-receive <<'EOF'
> >  #!/bin/sh
> > -printf "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args
> > +printf %s "$@" >>$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args
> 
> Do you really mean this? "printf %s 1 2 3" writes "123" without
> terminating LF.  You seem to check only for size but to be
> reusable you might want to use something like:

The only thing we care about is was there args or not to the hook.
I probably could do that test differently, like say:

	echo $# >$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args

and then test that the file contains "0" instead of looking for it to
be empty.  Not sure why I didn't write it that way in the beginning.

> 	printf '%s\n' "$@"

Eh.  Since all we care is that the argument count is 0 we probably
should be looking at $# and calling it a day.

-- 
Shawn.

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401

[Junio C Hamano]

"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> Do you really mean this? "printf %s 1 2 3" writes "123" without
>> terminating LF.  You seem to check only for size but to be
>> reusable you might want to use something like:
> 
> The only thing we care about is was there args or not to the hook.
> I probably could do that test differently, like say:
>
> 	echo $# >$GIT_DIR/pre-receive.args
>
> and then test that the file contains "0" instead of looking for it to
> be empty.  Not sure why I didn't write it that way in the beginning.
>
>> 	printf '%s\n' "$@"
>
> Eh.  Since all we care is that the argument count is 0 we probably
> should be looking at $# and calling it a day.

I'll apply as-is, but once you break the code that calls
pre-receive hook in such a way that it sends unexpected
arguments, you'd thank me for suggesting to print the arguments
separately while debugging the problem with the test script.

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401

[Shawn O. Pearce]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> >> 	printf '%s\n' "$@"
> >
> > Eh.  Since all we care is that the argument count is 0 we probably
> > should be looking at $# and calling it a day.
> 
> I'll apply as-is, but once you break the code that calls
> pre-receive hook in such a way that it sends unexpected
> arguments, you'd thank me for suggesting to print the arguments
> separately while debugging the problem with the test script.

Well, I don't really think it matters.  I doubt we'll break that
code that invokes the pre-receive or post-receive hooks.  And as
those hooks are defined to never take arguments if we did suddenly
start passing arguments we want the test to break.  When tests break
sometimes its not obvious why they have broken.

Case in point, the "remote: " prefixing caused by the sideband
demultiplexer really confused me for about 15 minutes.  I could
not figure out why the last test in this script was failing.
Until I pulled my head out of the sand and looked at the "actual"
file and saw those prefixes.  At which point it was very obvious.

:)

We haven't touched that script in almost a year.  I poked at it only
to fix a stupid error from my printf implementation, and because of
the new "remote:" prefix.  Which since it is a change in behavior may
cause problems for anyone who is trying to screen-scrape the stderr
of git-push.  Gawd I hope nobody's scripts are that convoluted.

-- 
Shawn.