Git Mailing List Archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] refs: check refnames as fully qualified when resolving
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:41:52 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240430104152.GF1279403@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZjB5dPoEoq8D6qzJ@tanuki>

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 06:54:12AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

> > diff --git a/t/t1430-bad-ref-name.sh b/t/t1430-bad-ref-name.sh
> > index 120e1557d7..5fb780cb08 100755
> > --- a/t/t1430-bad-ref-name.sh
> > +++ b/t/t1430-bad-ref-name.sh
> > @@ -400,4 +400,14 @@ test_expect_success 'update-ref refuses non-underscore outside of refs/' '
> >  	test_grep "refusing to update ref with bad name" err
> >  '
> >  
> > +test_expect_success REFFILES 'rev-parse refuses non-pseudoref outside of refs/' '
> > +	git rev-parse HEAD >.git/bad &&
> > +	test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify bad
> > +'
> > +
> > +test_expect_success REFFILES 'rev-parse recognizes non-pseudoref via worktree' '
> > +	git rev-parse HEAD >.git/bad &&
> > +	test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify main-worktree/bad
> > +'
> 
> Are these really specific to the REFFILES backend? I would expect that
> the reftable backend sohuld fail to parse those, too. The fact that we
> write into the repository directly during the test setup doesn't change
> this, because all this patch is about is that we don't want to parse
> random files in the Git repo. And that is something we should want to
> enforce for all backends.

So this is where I will show my ignorance of reftables. I assume it
still has to implement FETCH_HEAD as a file (since it holds extra data).
But does it do the same for other names outside of "refs/"? I am
assuming not in the paragraph below.

I would expect the test to succeed after my patches on any ref backend,
since we'd enforce the syntax outside of the backend-specific code. But
for a backend which does not look for the root name "foo" directly in
.git/, it is not an interesting test. The looked-for name does not
exist for it, so even if we did try the lookup, it would fail. We cannot
distinguish the two cases from the outcome we see.

So I think dropping REFFILES it would still pass, but we are not really
testing anything that interesting for reftables. That said, I would be
OK dropping the REFFILES in the name of simplicity and just documenting
it in the commit message.

-Peff

  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-30 10:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-29  8:35 [PATCH 8/8] refs: check refnames as fully qualified when resolving Jeff King
2024-04-30  4:54 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-04-30 10:41   ` Jeff King [this message]
2024-04-30 11:25     ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-05-03 17:55       ` Jeff King
2024-05-06  6:22         ` Patrick Steinhardt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240430104152.GF1279403@coredump.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ps@pks.im \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).