* [PATCH v5 15/16] pathspec: small readability changes
From: Brandon Williams @ 2017-01-04 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Brandon Williams, sbeller, pclouds, gitster
In-Reply-To: <20170104180411.150000-1-bmwill@google.com>
A few small changes to improve readability. This is done by grouping related
assignments, adding blank lines, ensuring lines are <80 characters, and
adding additional comments.
Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>
---
pathspec.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
index f3a7a1d33..e53530e7a 100644
--- a/pathspec.c
+++ b/pathspec.c
@@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct pathspec_magic {
char mnemonic; /* this cannot be ':'! */
const char *name;
} pathspec_magic[] = {
- { PATHSPEC_FROMTOP, '/', "top" },
- { PATHSPEC_LITERAL, 0, "literal" },
- { PATHSPEC_GLOB, '\0', "glob" },
- { PATHSPEC_ICASE, '\0', "icase" },
- { PATHSPEC_EXCLUDE, '!', "exclude" },
+ { PATHSPEC_FROMTOP, '/', "top" },
+ { PATHSPEC_LITERAL, '\0', "literal" },
+ { PATHSPEC_GLOB, '\0', "glob" },
+ { PATHSPEC_ICASE, '\0', "icase" },
+ { PATHSPEC_EXCLUDE, '!', "exclude" },
};
static void prefix_magic(struct strbuf *sb, int prefixlen, unsigned magic)
@@ -336,6 +336,7 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item *item, unsigned flags,
if ((magic & PATHSPEC_LITERAL) && (magic & PATHSPEC_GLOB))
die(_("%s: 'literal' and 'glob' are incompatible"), elt);
+ /* Create match string which will be used for pathspec matching */
if (pathspec_prefix >= 0) {
match = xstrdup(copyfrom);
prefixlen = pathspec_prefix;
@@ -343,11 +344,16 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item *item, unsigned flags,
match = xstrdup(copyfrom);
prefixlen = 0;
} else {
- match = prefix_path_gently(prefix, prefixlen, &prefixlen, copyfrom);
+ match = prefix_path_gently(prefix, prefixlen,
+ &prefixlen, copyfrom);
if (!match)
die(_("%s: '%s' is outside repository"), elt, copyfrom);
}
+
item->match = match;
+ item->len = strlen(item->match);
+ item->prefix = prefixlen;
+
/*
* Prefix the pathspec (keep all magic) and assign to
* original. Useful for passing to another command.
@@ -364,8 +370,6 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item *item, unsigned flags,
} else {
item->original = xstrdup(elt);
}
- item->len = strlen(item->match);
- item->prefix = prefixlen;
if (flags & PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_CHEAP)
strip_submodule_slash_cheap(item);
@@ -373,13 +377,14 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item *item, unsigned flags,
if (flags & PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE)
strip_submodule_slash_expensive(item);
- if (magic & PATHSPEC_LITERAL)
+ if (magic & PATHSPEC_LITERAL) {
item->nowildcard_len = item->len;
- else {
+ } else {
item->nowildcard_len = simple_length(item->match);
if (item->nowildcard_len < prefixlen)
item->nowildcard_len = prefixlen;
}
+
item->flags = 0;
if (magic & PATHSPEC_GLOB) {
/*
--
2.11.0.390.gc69c2f50cf-goog
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] pathspec cleanup
From: Brandon Williams @ 2017-01-04 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Duy Nguyen; +Cc: Git Mailing List, Stefan Beller, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <20170104175347.GA69227@google.com>
On 01/04, Brandon Williams wrote:
> On 01/04, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
> > > index 15f7c9993..e8ddd7f8a 100644
> > > --- a/dir.c
> > > +++ b/dir.c
> > > @@ -1353,6 +1353,15 @@ static int simplify_away(const char *path, int pathlen,
> > > {
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > + if (pathspec)
> > > + guard_pathspec(pathspec,
> > > + pathspec_fromtop |
> > > + pathspec_maxdepth |
> > > + pathspec_literal |
> > > + pathspec_glob |
> > > + pathspec_icase |
> > > + pathspec_exclude);
> >
> > You have done some magic (or your MTA/editor did) to lower case
> > GUARD_PATHSPEC and all the flags. The real patch looks good though, so
> > no problem.
>
> That's really odd, I was sure I just did a cut and paste. I'll fix that
> :)
So it looks like what ever I did to insert this into the cover letter
made everything lower case. The actual patch itself looks fine.
--
Brandon Williams
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] pathspec cleanup
From: Brandon Williams @ 2017-01-04 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Duy Nguyen; +Cc: Git Mailing List, Stefan Beller, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8C=SC+gE1HQeGdE5z3+S8RHwiM-4ZXBzuwvN=+COUGNzg@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/04, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
> > index 15f7c9993..e8ddd7f8a 100644
> > --- a/dir.c
> > +++ b/dir.c
> > @@ -1353,6 +1353,15 @@ static int simplify_away(const char *path, int pathlen,
> > {
> > int i;
> >
> > + if (pathspec)
> > + guard_pathspec(pathspec,
> > + pathspec_fromtop |
> > + pathspec_maxdepth |
> > + pathspec_literal |
> > + pathspec_glob |
> > + pathspec_icase |
> > + pathspec_exclude);
>
> You have done some magic (or your MTA/editor did) to lower case
> GUARD_PATHSPEC and all the flags. The real patch looks good though, so
> no problem.
That's really odd, I was sure I just did a cut and paste. I'll fix that
:)
>
> > +
> > if (!pathspec || !pathspec->nr)
> > return 0;
>
>
> Super tiny nit, if GUARD_PATHSPEC is placed after this line, then we
> don't have to check if pathspec is non-NULL. Probably not worth a
> re-roll unless somebody else finds something else.
I saw this after I sent out the series again, and I agree. I'll move
the guard to be after this check.
>
> > if (m->mnemonic)
> > - strbuf_addf(&sb, "'(%c)%s'", m->mnemonic, m->name);
> > + strbuf_addf(&sb, "'%s' (mnemonic: '%c')",
> > + m->name, m->mnemonic);
>
> .. and that somebody might be me :) we need to mark "mnemonic" for
> translation. Putting _() around the string would do.
>
> Ideally I would give the translators the whole sentence so they can
> have good context (and good translation as a result). But since we
> potentially concatenate multiple unsupported magic in the string,
> there's no way to provide one (or a few) fixed string(s) at compile
> time. So let's just _() it and leave it at that.
Will do!
--
Brandon Williams
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Preserve/Prune Old Pack Files
From: Martin Fick @ 2017-01-04 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: repo-discuss; +Cc: jmelvin, jgit-dev, git
In-Reply-To: <24abd0ed58c25ce832014f9bd5bb2090@codeaurora.org>
I am replying to this email across lists because I wanted to
highlight to the git community this jgit change to repacking
that we have up for review
https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/87969/
This change introduces a new convention for how to preserve
old pack files in a staging area
(.git/objects/packs/preserved) before deleting them. I
wanted to ensure that the new proposed convention would be
done in a way that would be satisfactory to the git
community as a whole so that it would be more easy to
provide the same behavior in git eventually. The preserved
pack files (and accompanying index and bitmap files), are not
only moved, but they are also renamed so that they no longer
will match recursive finds looking for pack files.
I look forward to any review (it need not happen on the
change, replies to this email would be fine also), in
particular with respect to the approach and naming
conventions.
Thanks,
-Martin
On Tuesday, January 03, 2017 02:46:12 PM
jmelvin@codeaurora.org wrote:
> We’ve noticed cases where Stale File Handle Exceptions
> occur during git operations, which can happen on users of
> NFS repos when repacking is done on them.
>
> To address this issue, we’ve added two new options to the
> JGit GC command:
>
> --preserve-oldpacks: moves old pack files into the
> preserved subdirectory instead of deleting them after
> repacking
>
> --prune-preserved: prunes old pack files from the
> preserved subdirectory after repacking, but before
> potentially moving the latest old pack files to this
> subdirectory
>
> The strategy is to preserve old pack files around until
> the next repack with the hopes that they will become
> unreferenced by then and not cause any exceptions to
> running processes when they are finally deleted (pruned).
>
> Change is uploaded for review here:
> https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/87969/
>
> Thanks,
> James
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code
Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] pathspec cleanup
From: Duy Nguyen @ 2017-01-04 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brandon Williams; +Cc: Git Mailing List, Stefan Beller, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <20170103184241.128409-1-bmwill@google.com>
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
> index 15f7c9993..e8ddd7f8a 100644
> --- a/dir.c
> +++ b/dir.c
> @@ -1353,6 +1353,15 @@ static int simplify_away(const char *path, int pathlen,
> {
> int i;
>
> + if (pathspec)
> + guard_pathspec(pathspec,
> + pathspec_fromtop |
> + pathspec_maxdepth |
> + pathspec_literal |
> + pathspec_glob |
> + pathspec_icase |
> + pathspec_exclude);
You have done some magic (or your MTA/editor did) to lower case
GUARD_PATHSPEC and all the flags. The real patch looks good though, so
no problem.
> +
> if (!pathspec || !pathspec->nr)
> return 0;
Super tiny nit, if GUARD_PATHSPEC is placed after this line, then we
don't have to check if pathspec is non-NULL. Probably not worth a
re-roll unless somebody else finds something else.
> if (m->mnemonic)
> - strbuf_addf(&sb, "'(%c)%s'", m->mnemonic, m->name);
> + strbuf_addf(&sb, "'%s' (mnemonic: '%c')",
> + m->name, m->mnemonic);
.. and that somebody might be me :) we need to mark "mnemonic" for
translation. Putting _() around the string would do.
Ideally I would give the translators the whole sentence so they can
have good context (and good translation as a result). But since we
potentially concatenate multiple unsupported magic in the string,
there's no way to provide one (or a few) fixed string(s) at compile
time. So let's just _() it and leave it at that.
--
Duy
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] dir.c: add retry logic to relocate_gitdir
From: Duy Nguyen @ 2017-01-04 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Beller; +Cc: Brandon Williams, git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZoiFfi9+-yqHZmF3Ofp3X-CV6s0qg1bm2CRpN-ETbDLw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>> On 12/19, Stefan Beller wrote:
> This code is heavily inspired by refs/files-backend.c which upon
> closer inspection only retries directory things within the git directory
> (which is assumed to be accessed in parallel by different invocations
> of Git)
I take inspiration from lock/temp files on the other hand. Could we
keep some sort of "undo journal" as we move along and clear it when
the "transaction" is completed? The good thing about lock files is,
even if you die() or SIGTERM'd, rolling back can still take place (but
it has to be something very simple, like removing or renaming because
you don't want to do big things in a signal handler).
If things turn out to be complicated and risky to be executed in an
unknown context, we could still print a helpful message like "yeah
you're in trouble, maybe try this and this, or consult git mailing
list. We apologise for the inconvenience,"
--
Duy
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Localise error headers
From: Duy Nguyen @ 2017-01-04 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Beller; +Cc: Michael J Gruber, git@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79ka-FXfFN8ZqE6+v06o3nKa7ad0iWttn99Y2wf5m6wfs8A@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>> In this implementation, the gettext call for the header and the body are done
>> in different places (error function vs. caller) but this call pattern seems to
>> be the easiest variant for the caller, because the message body has to be marked
>> for localisation in any case, and N_() requires more letters than _(), an extra
>> argument to die() etc. even more than the extra "_" in the function name.
>
> I see. We have to markup the strings to be translatable such that the .po files
> are complete. It would be really handy if there was a way to say "anything that
> is fed to this function (die_) needs to be marked for translation.
>
> Looking through
> https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/xgettext-Invocation.html
> such a thing doesn't seem to exist.
I think --keyword is exactly for that purpose: marking more text for
translations besides standard markers like _() or N_(). Yes we need to
call gettext() explicitly in die_() later on. We already do that for
parse-options. We just need to N_() the strings, without actually
spelling it out.
>
> So in that case die_(_(...)) seems to be the easiest way forward.
I still prefer changing the die_routine though since die() in many
cases could be used in both plumbing and porcelain contexts. And we
have tried to keep plumbing output (and behavior) as stable as
possible. The approach has some similarity to unpack_trees() which
shares the same porcelain/plumbing problem.
--
Duy
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] t9813: avoid using pipes
From: Pranit Bauva @ 2017-01-04 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Diamand; +Cc: Git Users, Stefan Beller, Johannes Sixt
In-Reply-To: <CAE5ih78vLwDubesnAxD=g3TzsbN0sQZae3McdFcwDAZfYYhXSg@mail.gmail.com>
Hey Luke,
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Luke Diamand <luke@diamand.org> wrote:
> On 3 January 2017 at 19:57, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The exit code of the upstream in a pipe is ignored thus we should avoid
>> using it. By writing out the output of the git command to a file, we can
>> test the exit codes of both the commands.
>
> Do we also need to fix t9814-git-p4-rename.sh ?
I don't think so. As Johannes[1] and Stefan[2] pointed out, we should
avoid upstream pipes for git. p4 can be treated as an "external
command" just like grep/sed.
[1]: http://public-inbox.org/git/285ed013-5c59-0b98-7dc0-8f729587a313@kdbg.org/
[2]: http://public-inbox.org/git/CAGZ79kZRFLzD7wcAnFvke9vBxxTAgE7=Ud7F_O95EfkWqz=LJw@mail.gmail.com/
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] Avoid Coverity warning about unfree()d git_exec_path()
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2017-01-03 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Beller
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano, David Aguilar,
Dennis Kaarsemaker, Paul Sbarra
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZ--jp08pK+xwn1N2VQQr8bA5+DveE2HsoY90R1gR6c_A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Stefan,
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Technically, it is correct that git_exec_path() returns a possibly
> > malloc()ed string. Practically, it is *sometimes* not malloc()ed. So
> > let's just use a static variable to make it a singleton. That'll shut
> > Coverity up, hopefully.
>
> I picked up this patch and applied it to the coverity branch
> that I maintain at github/stefanbeller/git.
>
> I'd love to see this patch upstream as it reduces my maintenance
> burden of the coverity branch by a patch.
>
> Early on when Git was new to coverity, some arguments were made
> that patches like these only clutter the main code base which is read
> by a lot of people, hence we want these quirks for coverity not upstream.
> And I think that still holds.
>
> If this patch is only to appease coverity (as the commit message eludes
> to) I think this may be a bad idea for upstream. If this patch fixes an
> actual problem, then the commit message needs to spell that out.
This patch was originally only to appease Coverity, but it actually *does*
plug a very real memory leak: previously, *every* call to git_exec_path()
*possibly* returned a newly-malloc()ed buffer. Now, the first call will
store that pointer in a static variable and reuse it later.
Could you maybe help me with improving the commit message?
Ciao,
Dscho
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v2] git-p4: do not pass '-r 0' to p4 commands
From: Luke Diamand @ 2017-01-04 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ori Rawlings; +Cc: Igor Kushnir, Git Users, Lars Schneider
In-Reply-To: <CAPv0x+PoQ+3ERAc_0gviYP5j1-Zg=X+B1OSC6vDKatqUhFtAag@mail.gmail.com>
On 3 January 2017 at 20:02, Ori Rawlings <orirawlings@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks good to me.
And me.
>
>
> Ori Rawlings
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] t9813: avoid using pipes
From: Luke Diamand @ 2017-01-04 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pranit Bauva; +Cc: Git Users, Stefan Beller, Johannes Sixt
In-Reply-To: <20170103195708.15157-2-pranit.bauva@gmail.com>
On 3 January 2017 at 19:57, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> wrote:
> The exit code of the upstream in a pipe is ignored thus we should avoid
> using it. By writing out the output of the git command to a file, we can
> test the exit codes of both the commands.
Do we also need to fix t9814-git-p4-rename.sh ?
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>
> ---
> t/t9813-git-p4-preserve-users.sh | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t9813-git-p4-preserve-users.sh b/t/t9813-git-p4-preserve-users.sh
> index 798bf2b67..2133b21ae 100755
> --- a/t/t9813-git-p4-preserve-users.sh
> +++ b/t/t9813-git-p4-preserve-users.sh
> @@ -118,12 +118,12 @@ test_expect_success 'not preserving user with mixed authorship' '
> make_change_by_user usernamefile3 Derek derek@example.com &&
> P4EDITOR=cat P4USER=alice P4PASSWD=secret &&
> export P4EDITOR P4USER P4PASSWD &&
> - git p4 commit |\
> - grep "git author derek@example.com does not match" &&
> + git p4 commit >actual &&
> + grep "git author derek@example.com does not match" actual &&
>
> make_change_by_user usernamefile3 Charlie charlie@example.com &&
> - git p4 commit |\
> - grep "git author charlie@example.com does not match" &&
> + git p4 commit >actual &&
> + grep "git author charlie@example.com does not match" actual &&
>
> make_change_by_user usernamefile3 alice alice@example.com &&
> git p4 commit >actual 2>&1 &&
> --
> 2.11.0
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] giteveryday: unbreak rendering with AsciiDoctor
From: Jeff King @ 2017-01-04 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <c3b21bbec96408c4d6698129fd336c24c9e2f0f0.1483373021.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 05:04:05PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> The "giteveryday" document has a callout list that contains a code
> block. This is not a problem for AsciiDoc, but AsciiDoctor sadly was
> explicitly designed *not* to render this correctly [*1*]. The symptom is
> an unhelpful
>
> line 322: callout list item index: expected 1 got 12
> line 325: no callouts refer to list item 1
> line 325: callout list item index: expected 2 got 13
> line 327: no callouts refer to list item 2
>
> In Git for Windows, we rely on the speed improvement of AsciiDoctor (on
> this developer's machine, `make -j15 html` takes roughly 30 seconds with
> AsciiDoctor, 70 seconds with AsciiDoc), therefore we need a way to
> render this correctly.
>
> The easiest way out is to simplify the callout list, as suggested by
> AsciiDoctor's author, even while one may very well disagree with him
> that a code block hath no place in a callout list.
This looks like a good re-write to avoid the issue while maintaining the
meaning and flow of the original.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] asciidoctor: fix user-manual to be built by `asciidoctor`
From: Jeff King @ 2017-01-04 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: git, 마누엘, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <3c160f81a88cf8697f2459bb7f2a3e27fb3e469c.1483373021.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 05:03:57PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> From: =?UTF-8?q?=EB=A7=88=EB=88=84=EC=97=98?= <nalla@hamal.uberspace.de>
>
> The `user-manual.txt` is designed as a `book` but the `Makefile` wants
> to build it as an `article`. This seems to be a problem when building
> the documentation with `asciidoctor`. Furthermore the parts *Git
> Glossary* and *Appendix B* had no subsections which is not allowed when
> building with `asciidoctor`. So lets add a *dummy* section.
The git-scm.com site uses asciidoctor, too, and I think I have seen some
oddness with the rendering though. So in general I am in favor of making
things work under both asciidoc and asciidoctor.
I diffed the results of "make user-manual.html" before and after this
patch. A lot of "h3" chapter titles get bumped to "h2", which is OK. The
chapter titles now say "Chapter 1. Repositories and Branches" rather
than just "Repositories and Branches". Likewise, references now say
Chapter 1, _Repositories and Branches_
rather than:
the section called "Repositories and Branches".
which is probably OK, though the whole thing is short enough that
calling the sections chapters feels a bit over-important. Chapters now
get their own table of contents, too. This is especially silly in
one-section chapters like "Git Glossary".
So I dunno. I really do think "article" is conceptually the most
appropriate style, but I agree that there are some book-like things
(like appendices).
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] pathspec: give better message for submodule related pathspec error
From: Jeff King @ 2017-01-04 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Beller; +Cc: gitster, git, bmwill
In-Reply-To: <20170104014835.22377-3-sbeller@google.com>
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:48:35PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
> Every once in a while someone complains to the mailing list to have
> run into this weird assertion[1]. The usual response from the mailing
> list is link to old discussions[2], and acknowledging the problem
> stating it is known.
>
> This patch accomplishes two things:
>
> 1. Switch assert() to die("BUG") to give a more readable message.
>
> 2. Take one of the cases where we hit a BUG and turn it into a normal
> "there was something wrong with the input" message.
As this last bit is quoted from me, I won't deny that it's brilliant as
usual.
But as this commit message needs to stand on its own, rather than as part of a
larger discussion thread, it might be worth expanding "one of the cases"
here. And talking about what's happening to the other cases.
Like:
This assertion triggered for cases where there wasn't a programming
bug, but just bogus input. In particular, if the user asks for a
pathspec that is inside a submodule, we shouldn't assert() or
die("BUG"); we should tell the user their request is bogus.
We'll retain the assertion for non-submodule cases, though. We don't
know of any cases that would trigger this, but it _would_ be
indicative of a programming error, and we should catch it here.
or something. Writing the first paragraph made me wonder if a better
solution, though, would be to catch and complain about this case
earlier. IOW, this _is_ a programming bug, because we're violating some
assumption of the pathspec code. And whatever is putting that item into
the pathspec list is what should be fixed.
I haven't looked closely enough to have a real opinion on that, though.
> diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
> index 22ca74a126..574a0bb158 100644
> --- a/pathspec.c
> +++ b/pathspec.c
> @@ -313,8 +313,28 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item *item,
> }
>
> /* sanity checks, pathspec matchers assume these are sane */
> - assert(item->nowildcard_len <= item->len &&
> - item->prefix <= item->len);
> + if (item->nowildcard_len > item->len ||
> + item->prefix > item->len) {
> + /* Historically this always was a submodule issue */
> + for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++) {
> + struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[i];
> + int len;
Given the discussion, this comment seems funny now. Who cares about
"historically"? It should probably be something like:
/*
* This case can be triggered by the user pointing us to a pathspec
* inside a submodule, which is an input error. Detect that here
* and complain, but fallback in the non-submodule case to a BUG,
* as we have no idea what would trigger that.
*/
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Localise error headers
From: Jeff King @ 2017-01-04 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael J Gruber; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <cover.1483354746.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 12:14:49PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Currently, the headers "error: ", "warning: " etc. - generated by die(),
> warning() etc. - are not localized, but we feed many localized error messages
> into these functions so that we produce error messages with mixed localisation.
>
> This series introduces variants of die() etc. that use localised variants of
> the headers, i.e. _("error: ") etc., and are to be fed localized messages. So,
> instead of die(_("not workee")), which would produce a mixed localisation (such
> as "error: geht ned"), one should use die_(_("not workee")) (resulting in
> "Fehler: geht ned").
I can't say I'm excited about having matching "_" variants for each
function. Are we sure that they are necessary? I.e., would it be
acceptable to just translate them always?
> 1/5 prepares the error machinery
> 2/5 provides new variants error_() etc.
> 3/5 has coccinelli rules error(_(E)) -> error_(_(E)) etc.
> 4/5 applies the coccinelli patches
>
> 5/5 is not to be applied to the main tree, but helps you try out the feature:
> it has changes to de.po and git.pot so that e.g. "git branch" has fully localised
> error messages (see the recipe in the commit message).
Your patches 4 and 5 don't seem to have made it to the list. Judging
from the diffstat, I'd guess they broke the 100K limit.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] road to reentrant real_path
From: Jeff King @ 2017-01-04 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Torsten Bögershausen
Cc: Brandon Williams, git, sbeller, jacob.keller, gitster, ramsay,
j6t, pclouds, larsxschneider
In-Reply-To: <3f9a530c-402f-f276-4721-fa6a8a6fef41@web.de>
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 07:56:02AM +0100, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> On 04.01.17 01:48, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 11:09:18AM -0800, Brandon Williams wrote:
> >
> >> Only change with v4 is in [1/5] renaming the #define MAXSYMLINKS back to
> >> MAXDEPTH due to a naming conflict brought up by Lars Schneider.
> >
> > Hmm. Isn't MAXSYMLINKS basically what you want here, though? It what's
> > what all other similar functions will be using.
> >
> > The only problem was that we were redefining the macro. So maybe:
> >
> > #ifndef MAXSYMLINKS
> > #define MAXSYMLINKS 5
> > #endif
> >
> > would be a good solution?
> Why 5 ? (looking at the 20..30 below)
> And why 5 on one system and e.g. on my Mac OS
> #define MAXSYMLINKS 32
I mentioned "5" because that is the current value of MAXDEPTH. I do
think it would be reasonable to bump it to something higher.
> Would the same value value for all Git installations on all platforms make sense?
> #define GITMAXSYMLINKS 20
I think it's probably more important to match the rest of the OS, so
that open("foo") and realpath("foo") behave similarly on the same
system. Though I think even that isn't always possible, as the limit is
dynamic on some systems.
I think the idea of the 20-30 range is that it's small enough to catch
an infinite loop quickly, and large enough that nobody will ever hit it
in practice. :)
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] road to reentrant real_path
From: Torsten Bögershausen @ 2017-01-04 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King, Brandon Williams
Cc: git, sbeller, jacob.keller, gitster, ramsay, j6t, pclouds,
larsxschneider
In-Reply-To: <20170104004825.3s27dsircdp5lqte@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 04.01.17 01:48, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 11:09:18AM -0800, Brandon Williams wrote:
>
>> Only change with v4 is in [1/5] renaming the #define MAXSYMLINKS back to
>> MAXDEPTH due to a naming conflict brought up by Lars Schneider.
>
> Hmm. Isn't MAXSYMLINKS basically what you want here, though? It what's
> what all other similar functions will be using.
>
> The only problem was that we were redefining the macro. So maybe:
>
> #ifndef MAXSYMLINKS
> #define MAXSYMLINKS 5
> #endif
>
> would be a good solution?
Why 5 ? (looking at the 20..30 below)
And why 5 on one system and e.g. on my Mac OS
#define MAXSYMLINKS 32
Would the same value value for all Git installations on all platforms make sense?
#define GITMAXSYMLINKS 20
>
> It looks like the "usual" value is more like 20 or 30 on most systems,
> though. We should probably also set errno to ELOOP when we hit the
> limit, which is what other symlink-resolving functions would do.
>
> I'm surprised we didn't hit this on Linux, which has MAXSYMLINKS, too.
> We should be picking it up from <sys/param.h>.
>
> -Peff
>
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH 2/2] pathspec: give better message for submodule related pathspec error
From: Stefan Beller @ 2017-01-04 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gitster; +Cc: git, peff, bmwill, Stefan Beller
In-Reply-To: <20170104014835.22377-1-sbeller@google.com>
Every once in a while someone complains to the mailing list to have
run into this weird assertion[1]. The usual response from the mailing
list is link to old discussions[2], and acknowledging the problem
stating it is known.
This patch accomplishes two things:
1. Switch assert() to die("BUG") to give a more readable message.
2. Take one of the cases where we hit a BUG and turn it into a normal
"there was something wrong with the input" message.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=item-%3Enowildcard_len
[2] http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/assert-failed-in-submodule-edge-case-td7628687.html
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg249473.html
Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---
pathspec.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
create mode 100755 t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh
diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
index 22ca74a126..574a0bb158 100644
--- a/pathspec.c
+++ b/pathspec.c
@@ -313,8 +313,28 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item *item,
}
/* sanity checks, pathspec matchers assume these are sane */
- assert(item->nowildcard_len <= item->len &&
- item->prefix <= item->len);
+ if (item->nowildcard_len > item->len ||
+ item->prefix > item->len) {
+ /* Historically this always was a submodule issue */
+ for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++) {
+ struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[i];
+ int len;
+
+ if (!S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))
+ continue;
+
+ len = ce_namelen(ce);
+ if (item->len < len)
+ len = item->len;
+
+ if (!memcmp(ce->name, item->match, len))
+ die (_("Pathspec '%s' is in submodule '%.*s'"),
+ item->original, ce_namelen(ce), ce->name);
+ }
+ /* The error is a new unknown bug */
+ die ("BUG: item->nowildcard_len > item->len || item->prefix > item->len)");
+ }
+
return magic;
}
diff --git a/t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh b/t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000000..2900d8d06e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+test_description='test case exclude pathspec'
+
+TEST_CREATE_SUBMODULE=yes
+. ./test-lib.sh
+
+test_expect_success 'setup a submodule' '
+ git submodule add ./pretzel.bare sub &&
+ git commit -a -m "add submodule" &&
+ git submodule deinit --all
+'
+
+cat <<EOF >expect
+fatal: Pathspec 'sub/a' is in submodule 'sub'
+EOF
+
+test_expect_success 'error message for path inside submodule' '
+ echo a >sub/a &&
+ test_must_fail git add sub/a 2>actual &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+'
+
+cat <<EOF >expect
+fatal: Pathspec '.' is in submodule 'sub'
+EOF
+
+test_expect_success 'error message for path inside submodule from within submodule' '
+ test_must_fail git -C sub add . 2>actual &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+'
+
+test_done
--
2.11.0.rc2.31.g2cc886f
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH 1/2] submodule tests: don't use itself as a submodule
From: Stefan Beller @ 2017-01-04 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gitster; +Cc: git, peff, bmwill, Stefan Beller
In-Reply-To: <20170104014835.22377-1-sbeller@google.com>
In reality nobody would run "git submodule add ./. <submodule-path>"
to add the repository to itself as a submodule as this comes with some
nasty surprises, such as infinite recursion when cloning that repository.
However we do this all the time in the test suite, because most of the
time this was the most convenient way to test a very specific thing
for submodule behavior.
This provides an easier way to have submodules in tests, by just setting
TEST_CREATE_SUBMODULE to a non empty string, similar to
TEST_NO_CREATE_REPO.
Make use of it in those tests that add a submodule from ./. except for
the occurrence in create_lib_submodule_repo as there it seems we craft
a repository deliberately for both inside as well as outside use.
The name "pretzel.[non]bare" was chosen deliberate to not introduce
more strings to the test suite containing "sub[module]" as searching for
"sub" already yields a lot of hits from different contexts. "pretzel"
doesn't occur in the test suite yet, so it is a good candidate for
a potential remote for a submodule.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---
t/lib-submodule-update.sh | 2 ++
t/t7001-mv.sh | 5 +++--
t/t7507-commit-verbose.sh | 4 +++-
t/t7800-difftool.sh | 4 +++-
t/test-lib-functions.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++
5 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/t/lib-submodule-update.sh b/t/lib-submodule-update.sh
index 79cdd34a54..58d76d9df8 100755
--- a/t/lib-submodule-update.sh
+++ b/t/lib-submodule-update.sh
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ create_lib_submodule_repo () {
git branch "no_submodule" &&
git checkout -b "add_sub1" &&
+ # Adding the repo itself as a submodule is a hack.
+ # Do not imitate this.
git submodule add ./. sub1 &&
git config -f .gitmodules submodule.sub1.ignore all &&
git config submodule.sub1.ignore all &&
diff --git a/t/t7001-mv.sh b/t/t7001-mv.sh
index e365d1ff77..6cb32f3a3a 100755
--- a/t/t7001-mv.sh
+++ b/t/t7001-mv.sh
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
#!/bin/sh
test_description='git mv in subdirs'
+TEST_CREATE_SUBMODULE=yes
. ./test-lib.sh
test_expect_success \
@@ -288,12 +289,12 @@ rm -f moved symlink
test_expect_success 'setup submodule' '
git commit -m initial &&
git reset --hard &&
- git submodule add ./. sub &&
+ git submodule add ./pretzel.bare sub &&
echo content >file &&
git add file &&
git commit -m "added sub and file" &&
mkdir -p deep/directory/hierarchy &&
- git submodule add ./. deep/directory/hierarchy/sub &&
+ git submodule add ./pretzel.bare deep/directory/hierarchy/sub &&
git commit -m "added another submodule" &&
git branch submodule
'
diff --git a/t/t7507-commit-verbose.sh b/t/t7507-commit-verbose.sh
index ed2653d46f..d269900afa 100755
--- a/t/t7507-commit-verbose.sh
+++ b/t/t7507-commit-verbose.sh
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
#!/bin/sh
test_description='verbose commit template'
+TEST_CREATE_SUBMODULE=yes
. ./test-lib.sh
write_script "check-for-diff" <<\EOF &&
@@ -74,11 +75,12 @@ test_expect_success 'diff in message is retained with -v' '
test_expect_success 'submodule log is stripped out too with -v' '
git config diff.submodule log &&
- git submodule add ./. sub &&
+ git submodule add ./pretzel.bare sub &&
git commit -m "sub added" &&
(
cd sub &&
echo "more" >>file &&
+ git add file &&
git commit -a -m "submodule commit"
) &&
(
diff --git a/t/t7800-difftool.sh b/t/t7800-difftool.sh
index 70a2de461a..d13a5d0453 100755
--- a/t/t7800-difftool.sh
+++ b/t/t7800-difftool.sh
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ test_description='git-difftool
Testing basic diff tool invocation
'
+TEST_CREATE_SUBMODULE=Yes
. ./test-lib.sh
@@ -534,7 +535,8 @@ test_expect_success PERL 'difftool --no-symlinks detects conflict ' '
'
test_expect_success PERL 'difftool properly honors gitlink and core.worktree' '
- git submodule add ./. submod/ule &&
+ git submodule add ./pretzel.bare submod/ule &&
+ test_commit -C submod/ule second_commit &&
test_config -C submod/ule diff.tool checktrees &&
test_config -C submod/ule difftool.checktrees.cmd '\''
test -d "$LOCAL" && test -d "$REMOTE" && echo good
diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
index 579e812506..aa327a7dff 100644
--- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
@@ -800,6 +800,22 @@ test_create_repo () {
error "cannot run git init -- have you built things yet?"
mv .git/hooks .git/hooks-disabled
) || exit
+ if test -n "$TEST_CREATE_SUBMODULE"
+ then
+ (
+ cd "$repo"
+ TEST_CREATE_SUBMODULE=
+ export TEST_CREATE_SUBMODULE
+ test_create_repo "pretzel.nonbare"
+ test_commit -C "pretzel.nonbare" \
+ "create submodule" "submodule-file" \
+ "submodule-content" "submodule-tag" >&3 2>&4 ||
+ error "cannot run test_commit"
+ git clone --bare "pretzel.nonbare" \
+ "pretzel.bare" >&3 2>&4 ||
+ error "cannot clone into bare"
+ )
+ fi
}
# This function helps on symlink challenged file systems when it is not
--
2.11.0.rc2.31.g2cc886f
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCHv4 0/2] pathspec: give better message for submodule related pathspec error
From: Stefan Beller @ 2017-01-04 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gitster; +Cc: git, peff, bmwill, Stefan Beller
> It MIGHT be a handy hack when writing a test, but let's stop doing
> that insanity. No sane project does that in real life, doesn't it?
> Create a subdirectory, make it a repository, have a commit there and
> bind that as our own submodule. That would be a more normal way to
> start your own superproject and its submodule pair if they originate
> together at the same place.
This comes as an extra patch before the actual fix.
The actual fixing patch was reworded borrowing some words from Jeff.
As this makes use of "test_commit -C", it goes on top of sb/submodule-embed-gitdir
Thanks,
Stefan
Stefan Beller (2):
submodule tests: don't use itself as a submodule
pathspec: give better message for submodule related pathspec error
pathspec.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
t/lib-submodule-update.sh | 2 ++
t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
t/t7001-mv.sh | 5 +++--
t/t7507-commit-verbose.sh | 4 +++-
t/t7800-difftool.sh | 4 +++-
t/test-lib-functions.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++
7 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
create mode 100755 t/t6134-pathspec-in-submodule.sh
--
2.11.0.rc2.31.g2cc886f
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] pathspec: give better message for submodule related pathspec error
From: Jeff King @ 2017-01-04 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Beller; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, git@vger.kernel.org, Brandon Williams
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZ5F46UzeNeVYQV1EKEEa6+az-Pe_jrT+wZF9X6b34CGA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:15:38AM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > I take that the new "BUG" thing tells the Git developers that no
> > sane codepath should throw an pathspec_item that satisfies the
> > condition of the if() statement for non-submodules?
>
> If we want to keep the semantics of the assert around, then we
> have to have a blank statement if the submodule error message
> is not triggered.
>
> I assume if we print this BUG, then there is an actual bug.
Right. I think this isn't a new "BUG", but rather a loosening of an
existing one. IOW, two things are going on here:
1. Switch assert() to die("BUG") to give a more readable message.
2. Take one of the cases where we hit a BUG and turn it into a normal
"there was something wrong with the input" message.
If I understand the submodule case correctly, then (2) is reasonable.
The user gave a bogus pathspec that crosses the submodule boundary.
I've no idea if there are other cases that could ever hit the remaining
BUG, but it seems like a good defensive measure to leave it in. If
somebody hits it, then we can investigate their case.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCHv2] submodule.c: use GIT_DIR_ENVIRONMENT consistently
From: Jeff King @ 2017-01-04 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Beller; +Cc: gitster, l.s.r, git
In-Reply-To: <20170103183047.17968-1-sbeller@google.com>
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:30:47AM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
> In C code we have the luxury of having constants for all the important
> things that are hard coded. This is the only place in C, that hard codes
> the git directory environment variable, so fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
This looks like a good change to me.
Minor nit: the comma after "C" in your commit message is extraneous. ;)
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: builtin difftool parsing issue
From: Jacob Keller @ 2017-01-04 1:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Beller
Cc: Paul Sbarra, Johannes Schindelin, David Aguilar,
Dennis Kaarsemaker, git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kaMnFUefiMagU82euxjeQdnc9KdgSwyDvkDp--QT-MbCA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Paul Sbarra <sbarra.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would have expected `git difftool --submodule=diff ...` to work... What
>>> are the problems?
>>
>> The docs for difftool state...
>> "git difftool is a frontend to git diff and accepts the same options
>> and arguments."
>
> I think such a sentence in the man page is dangerous, as nobody
> was caught this issue until now. There have been numerous authors
> and reviewers that touched "diff --submodule=<format>, but as there
> is no back-reference, hinting that the patch is only half done, and the
> difftool also needs to implement such an option.
>
> We should reword the man page either as
>
> "git difftool is a frontend to git diff and accepts the most(?) options
> and arguments."
>
> or even be explicit and list the arguments instead. There we could also
> describe differences if any (e.g. the formats available might be different
> for --submodule=<format>)
I agree with updating the documentation. Difftool would require
extensive work to support the --submodule format, and I'm not sure
it's worth it.
Thanks,
Jake
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] Avoid Coverity warning about unfree()d git_exec_path()
From: Jeff King @ 2017-01-04 1:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Beller
Cc: Johannes Schindelin, git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano,
David Aguilar, Dennis Kaarsemaker, Paul Sbarra
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZ--jp08pK+xwn1N2VQQr8bA5+DveE2HsoY90R1gR6c_A@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 12:11:25PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Technically, it is correct that git_exec_path() returns a possibly
> > malloc()ed string. Practically, it is *sometimes* not malloc()ed. So
> > let's just use a static variable to make it a singleton. That'll shut
> > Coverity up, hopefully.
>
> I picked up this patch and applied it to the coverity branch
> that I maintain at github/stefanbeller/git.
>
> I'd love to see this patch upstream as it reduces my maintenance
> burden of the coverity branch by a patch.
There is another lurking issue in that function, which is that the
return value of getenv() is not guaranteed to last beyond more calls to
getenv() or setenv(). It should probably xstrdup() that result, too.
At that point 2 out of 3 of the return cases would be malloc'd strings,
so we _could_ switch the third and say "caller must free the result".
But I think I prefer something like Dscho's solution (more on that
below).
> Early on when Git was new to coverity, some arguments were made
> that patches like these only clutter the main code base which is read
> by a lot of people, hence we want these quirks for coverity not upstream.
> And I think that still holds.
>
> If this patch is only to appease coverity (as the commit message eludes
> to) I think this may be a bad idea for upstream. If this patch fixes an
> actual problem, then the commit message needs to spell that out.
This is a real leak, though in all cases the program typically exits
soon afterwards. But we leak from list_commands(), for example, and it
is not immediately obvious that this is only called right before
exiting.
But I think more important is that caching the result in a static
variable communicates something (both to Coverity and to a reader of the
code). This is a value we expect to live through the life of the
program, and it is OK for it to "leak" when it goes out of scope by the
program exiting.
So even though the behavior does not really change, the annotation has
value.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] real_path: have callers use real_pathdup and strbuf_realpath
From: Jacob Keller @ 2017-01-04 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brandon Williams
Cc: Git mailing list, Stefan Beller, Jeff King, Junio C Hamano,
Ramsay Jones, Torsten Bögershausen, Johannes Sixt,
Duy Nguyen, Lars Schneider
In-Reply-To: <20170103190923.11882-5-bmwill@google.com>
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> wrote:
> Migrate callers of real_path() who duplicate the retern value to use
> real_pathdup or strbuf_realpath.
Nit: s/retern/return
^ permalink raw reply
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox