Hi Dscho
On 10/10/2019 22:31, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Phillip,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: Phillip Wood <phillip.w...@dunelm.org.uk>
Prior to commit 356ee4659b ("sequencer: try to commit without forking
'git commit'", 2017-11-24) the sequencer would always run the
post-commit hook after each pick or revert as it forked `git commit` to
create the commit. The conversion to committing without forking `git
commit` omitted to call the post-commit hook after creating the commit.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.w...@dunelm.org.uk>
Makes sense.
---
builtin/commit.c | 2 +-
sequencer.c | 5 +++++
sequencer.h | 1 +
t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh | 17 +++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
index d898a57f5d..adb8c89c60 100644
--- a/builtin/commit.c
+++ b/builtin/commit.c
@@ -1653,7 +1653,7 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char
*prefix)
repo_rerere(the_repository, 0);
run_command_v_opt(argv_gc_auto, RUN_GIT_CMD);
- run_commit_hook(use_editor, get_index_file(), "post-commit", NULL);
+ run_post_commit_hook(use_editor, get_index_file());
Does it really make sense to abstract the hook name away? It adds a lot
of churn for just two callers...
I'll drop the new function in the reroll
if (amend && !no_post_rewrite) {
commit_post_rewrite(the_repository, current_head, &oid);
}
diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
index 3ce578c40b..b4947f6969 100644
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
@@ -1173,6 +1173,10 @@ static int run_prepare_commit_msg_hook(struct repository
*r,
return ret;
}
+void run_post_commit_hook(int editor_is_used, const char *index_file) {
+ run_commit_hook(editor_is_used, index_file, "post-commit", NULL);
+}
+
If we must have a separate `run_post_commit_hook()`, then it should be
an `inline` function, defined in the header. Or even a macro to begin
with.
static const char implicit_ident_advice_noconfig[] =
N_("Your name and email address were configured automatically based\n"
"on your username and hostname. Please check that they are accurate.\n"
@@ -1427,6 +1431,7 @@ static int try_to_commit(struct repository *r,
goto out;
}
+ run_post_commit_hook(0, r->index_file);
So this is the _actual_ change of this patch.
if (flags & AMEND_MSG)
commit_post_rewrite(r, current_head, oid);
diff --git a/sequencer.h b/sequencer.h
index b0419d6ddb..e3e73c5635 100644
--- a/sequencer.h
+++ b/sequencer.h
@@ -203,4 +203,5 @@ int sequencer_get_last_command(struct repository* r,
enum replay_action *action);
LAST_ARG_MUST_BE_NULL
int run_commit_hook(int editor_is_used, const char *index_file, const char
*name, ...);
+void run_post_commit_hook(int editor_is_used, const char *index_file);
#endif /* SEQUENCER_H */
diff --git a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh
index d2f1d5bd23..d9217235b6 100755
--- a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh
+++ b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh
@@ -1467,4 +1467,21 @@ test_expect_success 'valid author header when author
contains single quote' '
test_cmp expected actual
'
+test_expect_success 'post-commit hook is called' '
+ test_when_finished "rm -f .git/hooks/post-commit commits" &&
+ mkdir -p .git/hooks &&
+ write_script .git/hooks/post-commit <<-\EOS &&
+ git rev-parse HEAD >>commits
Should `commits` be initialized before this script is written, e.g.
using
>commits &&
Good point, especially if it is renamed to actual as Junio suggests
+ EOS
+ set_fake_editor &&
The `set_fake_editor` function sets a global environment variable, and
therefore needs to be run in a subshell. Therefore, this line (as well
as the next one) need to be enclosed in `( ... )`.
There are ~80 instances of
set_fake_editor/test_set_editor/set_cat_todo_editor in that file that
are not in subshells. I've converted them in a preparatory patch (that
was fun), removing about 20 that can now safely rely on EDITOR=:
(hopefully that will ameliorate the performance hit of ~60 extra
subshells a little)
+ FAKE_LINES="edit 4 1 reword 2 fixup 3" git rebase -i A E &&
+ echo x>file3 &&
We usually leave no space after the `>`, but we _do_ leave a space
_before_ the `>`.
+ git add file3 &&
+ FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=edited git rebase --continue &&
+ # rev-list does not support -g --reverse
+ git rev-list --no-walk=unsorted HEAD@{5} HEAD@{4} HEAD@{3} HEAD@{2} \
+ HEAD@{1} HEAD >expected &&
Wouldn't this be better as:
git rev-parse HEAD@{5} HEAD@{4} HEAD@{3} HEAD@{2} HEAD@{1} HEAD \
>expect &&
Good point
+ test_cmp expected commits
We usually use the name `expect` instead of `expected` in the test
suite.
OK
Thanks for looking at this series
Phillip
Thanks,
Dscho
+'
+
test_done
--
gitgitgadget
