[PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[Mark Rada]

For consistency with the rest of the test files.

Signed-off-by: Mark Rada <marada@uwaterloo.ca>
---

On 2009-10-01, at 4:13 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>> diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
>> index d0ff21d..0688a57 100644
>> --- a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
>> +++ b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> 
> BTW. the rest of test scripts are executable, but not this one? Why?
> (But correcting this should be done, if needed, in separate commit).

I noticed one other test script that was not set to be executable.


 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
 mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh

diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
-- 
1.6.5.rc2

Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[Jeff King]

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:59:20PM -0400, Mark Rada wrote:

> For consistency with the rest of the test files.

Thanks. Interestingly, though, I think this may be triggering a bug in
git-am:

>  0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
>  mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> 
> diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755

When applying via "am", I only got the first change in my tree. I'll see
if I can confirm and make a test case.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 04:01:34AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

> >  0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
> >  mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> > 
> > diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
> > old mode 100644
> > new mode 100755
> > diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> > b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> > old mode 100644
> > new mode 100755
> 
> When applying via "am", I only got the first change in my tree. I'll see
> if I can confirm and make a test case.

Ah, nevermind. The problem is that your patch was word-wrapped, making
the second "diff --git" line bogus. It would have been nice to have it
print a warning instead of silently ignoring that bit of the patch.

I'm not sure if it is a good idea, though. git-apply sees that the "diff
--git" line is there but can't get a filename from it. Which _should_
cause it to barf when we get to the mode lines. But we first see the
wrapped filename and consider that patch section to be over (and the
mode lines just become cruft at the end of the patch, which we must
ignore).

And we must consider that patch section to be over when we see random
text, because we need to jump back to the outer parser looking for more
hunks. We could warn about a "diff --git" line that has no actual
changes associated with it, though that is certainly a user-visible
change. I also suspect it wouldn't help if there was a mode change
followed by some actual content changes.

Hmph.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[Mark Rada]

On 2009-10-02, at 4:39 AM, Jeff King wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 04:01:34AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>>> 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>> mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
>>> mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http- 
>>> status.sh
>>>
>>> diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep- 
>>> submodule-push.sh
>>> old mode 100644
>>> new mode 100755
>>> diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
>>> b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
>>> old mode 100644
>>> new mode 100755
>>
>> When applying via "am", I only got the first change in my tree.  
>> I'll see
>> if I can confirm and make a test case.
>
> Ah, nevermind. The problem is that your patch was word-wrapped, making
> the second "diff --git" line bogus. It would have been nice to have it
> print a warning instead of silently ignoring that bit of the patch.
>

I didn't have format=flowed buggering things up this time, so I don't
quite understand the problem; could you please explain with more  
details?

When I try to apply the patch from a saved copy of the e-mail, I get
the following error:

	# git am ~/Downloads/\[PATCH\]\ tests_\ make\ all\ test\ files\  
executable.eml
	Patch format detection failed.
	zsh: exit 1     git am

The difference between the patch created by format-patch and the saved
e-mail is just some e-mail header information. Is that a different error
than what you were getting? I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, help
would be appreciated.

--
Mark Rada (ferrous26)
marada@uwaterloo.ca

Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[Jeff King]

On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 09:18:20AM -0400, Mark Rada wrote:

> >Ah, nevermind. The problem is that your patch was word-wrapped, making
> >the second "diff --git" line bogus. It would have been nice to have it
> >print a warning instead of silently ignoring that bit of the patch.
> >
> I didn't have format=flowed buggering things up this time, so I don't
> quite understand the problem; could you please explain with more
> details?

Sure. The patch is perfect except for one line. What should have been:

diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh

was wrapped to:

diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh

I have no idea how you did that, though. :)

It looks like you send with Thunderbird. How do you get the diff content
into the email? Is it possible that it wraps the content after you have
gotten it there?

> When I try to apply the patch from a saved copy of the e-mail, I get
> the following error:
> 
> 	# git am ~/Downloads/\[PATCH\]\ tests_\ make\ all\ test\ files\
> executable.eml
> 	Patch format detection failed.
> 	zsh: exit 1     git am
> 
> The difference between the patch created by format-patch and the saved
> e-mail is just some e-mail header information. Is that a different error
> than what you were getting? I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, help
> would be appreciated.

Yeah, that's totally different than the problem I was having. I save to
an mbox from mutt, which "git am" understands just fine. I'd have to see
what was in your .eml file to know why "git am" couldn't figure it out
(and it might be a good test case, as "git am" has recently learned to
accept more mailbox formats).

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[Mark Rada]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2086 bytes --]

On 09-10-04 9:40 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 09:18:20AM -0400, Mark Rada wrote:
> 
>>> Ah, nevermind. The problem is that your patch was word-wrapped, making
>>> the second "diff --git" line bogus. It would have been nice to have it
>>> print a warning instead of silently ignoring that bit of the patch.
>>>
>> I didn't have format=flowed buggering things up this time, so I don't
>> quite understand the problem; could you please explain with more
>> details?
> 
> Sure. The patch is perfect except for one line. What should have been:
> 
> diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> 
> was wrapped to:
> 
> diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
> 
> I have no idea how you did that, though. :)
> 
> It looks like you send with Thunderbird. How do you get the diff content
> into the email? Is it possible that it wraps the content after you have
> gotten it there?

I don't think so, I have plug-in that disables wrapping and has worked
just fine for the last couple of patches I sent, so I'm not sure what
was going on there.

>> When I try to apply the patch from a saved copy of the e-mail, I get
>> the following error:
>>
>> 	# git am ~/Downloads/\[PATCH\]\ tests_\ make\ all\ test\ files\
>> executable.eml
>> 	Patch format detection failed.
>> 	zsh: exit 1     git am
>>
>> The difference between the patch created by format-patch and the saved
>> e-mail is just some e-mail header information. Is that a different error
>> than what you were getting? I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, help
>> would be appreciated.
> 
> Yeah, that's totally different than the problem I was having. I save to
> an mbox from mutt, which "git am" understands just fine. I'd have to see
> what was in your .eml file to know why "git am" couldn't figure it out
> (and it might be a good test case, as "git am" has recently learned to
> accept more mailbox formats).

I've attached a copy of the .eml file.


-- 
Mark Rada (ferrous26)
marada@uwaterloo.ca

[-- Attachment #2: [PATCH] tests_ make all test files executable.eml --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1142 bytes --]

Subject: 

From:
Mark Rada <marada@mailservices.uwaterloo.ca>
Date:
Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:59:20 -0400
To:
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
CC:
git@vger.kernel.org
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Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[Jeff King]

On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 09:25:27PM -0400, Mark Rada wrote:

> > It looks like you send with Thunderbird. How do you get the diff content
> > into the email? Is it possible that it wraps the content after you have
> > gotten it there?
> 
> I don't think so, I have plug-in that disables wrapping and has worked
> just fine for the last couple of patches I sent, so I'm not sure what
> was going on there.

I don't know, then. I'm pretty sure it wasn't wrapped up on my end, as
it is also wrapped in gmane:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/129420

Maybe some hints are here:

  http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-_Thunderbird

> > an mbox from mutt, which "git am" understands just fine. I'd have to see
> > what was in your .eml file to know why "git am" couldn't figure it out
> > (and it might be a good test case, as "git am" has recently learned to
> > accept more mailbox formats).
> 
> I've attached a copy of the .eml file.

Hmm. The .eml format appears to be some kind of inscrutable binary
format. "git am" certainly won't understand it. I'm not sure how you
created it, but you need to convince Thunderbird to export as an 'mbox'
format (which it clearly understands, as that is its native local
format). I have no idea how to do that, though.

-Peff

[PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[Mark Rada]

For consistency with the rest of the test files.

Signed-off-by: Mark Rada <marada@uwaterloo.ca>
---

	No changes, just a resend. This should work; I assume
	the problem last time was a human error (me :(), or
	something weird that happens with saving e-mail drafts
	between	Apple Mail and Thunderbird (they share).

	If this version is also messed up, then I give up.

	Jeff, please explain what you meant by `inscrutable
	binary'? It is an ASCII text file according to file.
	¯\(°_o)/¯

 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
 mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh

diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
diff --git a/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh b/t/t9501-gitweb-standalone-http-status.sh
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
--
1.6.5.rc2

Re: [PATCH] tests: make all test files executable

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:46:06PM -0400, Mark Rada wrote:

> 	No changes, just a resend. This should work; I assume
> 	the problem last time was a human error (me :(), or
> 	something weird that happens with saving e-mail drafts
> 	between	Apple Mail and Thunderbird (they share).

This version looks fine (though I fixed up and applied the old one, so
it is only useful as an experment). Whatever you did differently worked.
:)

> 	Jeff, please explain what you meant by `inscrutable
> 	binary'? It is an ASCII text file according to file.
> 	¯\(°_o)/¯

When I looked at in mutt, it was full of binary garbage. But looking at
it more closely, the attachment is bogus. Look at:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/129522/raw

You have a message/rfc822 attachment which claims to be encoded using
base64. But there's a bunch of extra text at the top before the base64
starts, which throws off the decoding, leading to the binary garbage.

So the .eml format appears to be a subset of the headers, followed by
the base64-encoded body. But your mail client, in attaching it, marked
it as base64-encoded, which is just wrong. But in theory that is a
problem in transporting the file to the list. For you to "git am" it
yourself, we'll assume you saw the raw contents.

Even then, it is still a confusing format. Instead of the headers
looking like

  From: whatever

there is a line break, so they appear as

  From:
  whatever

and of course there are no mime headers indicating that body is
base64-encoded. So it is definitely not an rfc822 message, which is what
"git am" is expecting.

-Peff