Re: [PATCH 07/10] t1006: accommodate for symlink support in MSYS2

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 02:29:45PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2025, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 06:28:23PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > 
> > >  test_expect_success 'git cat-file --batch-check --follow-symlinks works for symlinks with internal ..' '
> > > -	echo HEAD: | git cat-file --batch-check >expect &&
> > > -	echo HEAD:up-down | git cat-file --batch-check --follow-symlinks >actual &&
> > > -	test_cmp expect actual &&
> > > -	echo HEAD:up-down-trailing | git cat-file --batch-check --follow-symlinks >actual &&
> > > -	test_cmp expect actual &&
> > > +	if test_have_prereq !MINGW
> > > +	then
> > > +		# The `up-down` and `up-down-trailing` symlinks are normalized
> > > +		# in MSYS in `winsymlinks` mode and are therefore in a
> > > +		# different shape than Git expects them.
> > > +		echo HEAD: | git cat-file --batch-check >expect &&
> > > +		echo HEAD:up-down | git cat-file --batch-check --follow-symlinks >actual &&
> > > +		test_cmp expect actual &&
> > > +		echo HEAD:up-down-trailing | git cat-file --batch-check --follow-symlinks >actual &&
> > > +		test_cmp expect actual
> > > +	fi &&
> > >  	echo HEAD:up-down-file | git cat-file --batch-check --follow-symlinks >actual &&
> > >  	test_cmp found actual &&
> > >  	echo symlink 7 >expect &&
> > 
> > I'm not quite sure I follow, so my questions may be dumb. Does this mean
> > that git-cat-file(1) fails to follow the symlink in this case, and
> > consequently we cannot execute it at all? If so, is this a bug that
> > we'll eventually have to fix?
> 
> No, it means that the symbolic links are not even created in the way Git's
> test suite thinks they are (or should be) created. The way those symbolic
> link targets exist on disk (i.e. the way Cygwin's
> `winsymlinks:nativestrict` mode constructs them), the expectations of this
> test cannot be met, no matter what `cat-file` does.

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying!

Patrick