Re: [Outreachy PATCH 1/2] apply: do not keep names from an unused "diff --git" line

[Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>]

Hi Tanga

On 07/11/2026 19:54, Tanga Joris wrote:
> When a "diff --git" line is followed by a line that is not a git
> header line, such as a blank line or an indented "new file mode"
> line,

These sound like corrupt patches which we should be rejecting with a 
better error message, rather than applying.

> +test_expect_success 'apply new file with a blank line after "diff --git"' '
> +	test_when_finished "rm -f f" &&
> +	cat >blank_line.diff <<-\EOF &&
> +	diff --git a/f b/f
> +
> +	new file mode 100644
> +	index 0000000..d00491f
> +	--- /dev/null
> +	+++ b/f
> +	@@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +	+1
> +	EOF

To me this looks like a corrupt patch because we have a blank line after 
the "diff --git" header followed by valid extended diff headers. Now 
that we accept this do we respect the file mode?

> +test_expect_success 'apply new file with an indented "new file mode" line' '
> +	test_when_finished "rm -f f" &&
> +	cat >indented_mode.diff <<-\EOF &&
> +	diff --git a/f b/f
> +	 new file mode 100644

This looks like a corrupt patch as well where a space has been 
accidentally introduced at the start of the line.

> +test_expect_success 'ignore an empty "diff --git" section' '
> +	test_when_finished "rm -f g" &&
> +	echo 1 >g &&
> +	cat >empty_section.diff <<-\EOF &&
> +	diff --git a/f b/f
> +	diff --git a/g b/g
> +	index d00491f..0cfbf08 100644
> +	--- a/g
> +	+++ b/g
> +	@@ -1 +1 @@
> +	-1
> +	+2
> +	EOF

This is the only one that I think it is reasonable to accept - we have 
an empty patch for "f" followed by a valid patch for "g"

Thanks

Phillip