mergetool(vimdiff): allow paths to contain spaces again #1287
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Closed
1 task
dscho
force-pushed
the
fix-vimdiff-with-spaces-in-paths
branch
from
91db82c to
dde9c7c
Compare
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]>
writes:
> To fix this, let's not expand the variables containing the path
> parameters before passing them to the `eval` command, but let that
> command expand the variables instead.
Yup, that is exactly the right approach to fix this kind of
breakage.
Thanks for a clear description of the problem and the solution.
Fernando? Ack? |
|
This branch is now known as |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@c9a0646. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@7b49f7b. |
|
On the Git mailing list, Fernando Ramos wrote (reply to this): On 22/07/13 09:22AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thanks for a clear description of the problem and the solution.
>
> Fernando? Ack?
Yes. 100% Ack'ed.
Thanks Johannes for the bug report and the patch! |
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): Fernando Ramos <[email protected]> writes:
> On 22/07/13 09:22AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Thanks for a clear description of the problem and the solution.
>>
>> Fernando? Ack?
>
> Yes. 100% Ack'ed.
>
> Thanks Johannes for the bug report and the patch!
Funny that we now seem to fail t7609 mergetool --tool=vimdiff
tests, e.g.
https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/2665800752
|
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]>
writes:
> if $base_present
> then
> ...
> + base_present=1
I think s/1/true/ or something is in order, perhaps?
> + LOCAL='lo cal'
> + BASE='ba se'
> + REMOTE="' '"
> + MERGED='mer ged'
> + merge_tool_path=record_parameters
> +
> + merge_cmd vimdiff || at_least_one_ko=true
> +
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF
> + -f
> + -c
> + echo | split | vertical split | 1b | wincmd l | vertical split | quit | wincmd l | 2b | wincmd j | 3b | tabdo windo diffthis
> + -c
> + tabfirst
> + lo cal
> + ' '
> + mer ged
> + EOF
> +
> + diff -u expect actual || at_least_one_ko=true
> +
> if test "$at_least_one_ko" = "true"
> then
> return 255
>
> base-commit: 980145f7470e20826ca22d7343494712eda9c81d |
|
On the Git mailing list, Fernando Ramos wrote (reply to this): On 22/07/13 02:08PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> I think s/1/true/ or something is in order, perhaps?
>
Yes. I was just looking into that.
For one, as you said, "1" should be "true". That also changes the expected
output.
Then, in addition, the expected output needs to be re-adjusted once again if we
plan to apply this patch on top of the other one from two days ago (the one that
adds the "leftabove" keyword to split subcommands).
After these changes, this is how the original patch from Johannes needs to be
updated:
diff --git a/mergetools/vimdiff b/mergetools/vimdiff
index 56516ae271..3046dcd0dc 100644
--- a/mergetools/vimdiff
+++ b/mergetools/vimdiff
@@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ run_unit_tests () {
done
}
- base_present=1
+ base_present=true
LOCAL='lo cal'
BASE='ba se'
REMOTE="' '"
@@ -635,10 +635,11 @@ run_unit_tests () {
cat >expect <<-\EOF
-f
-c
- echo | split | vertical split | 1b | wincmd l | vertical split | quit | wincmd l | 2b | wincmd j | 3b | tabdo windo diffthis
+ echo | -tabnew | leftabove split | leftabove vertical split | 1b | wincmd l | leftabove vertical split | 2b | wincmd l | 3b | wincmd j | 4b | tabnext | -tabnew | leftabove vertical split | 2b | wincmd l | 1b | tabnext | -tabnew | leftabove vertical split | 2b | wincmd l | 3b | tabnext | leftabove vertical split | leftabove split | 1b | wincmd j | leftabove split | 2b | wincmd j | 3b | wincmd l | 4b | tabdo windo diffthis
-c
tabfirst
lo cal
+ ba se
' '
mer ged
EOF
--
2.37.0
|
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): Fernando Ramos <[email protected]> writes:
> On 22/07/13 02:08PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> I think s/1/true/ or something is in order, perhaps?
>>
>
> Yes. I was just looking into that.
>
> For one, as you said, "1" should be "true". That also changes the expected
> output.
OK, because "1" fails to execute, the expected output Dscho had
(which is for the case without base) would become invalid when we
use "true".
Perhaps we should use "false" instead? Or do we need to test both?
> Then, in addition, the expected output needs to be re-adjusted once again if we
> plan to apply this patch on top of the other one from two days ago (the one that
> adds the "leftabove" keyword to split subcommands).
> After these changes, this is how the original patch from Johannes needs to be
> updated:
>
>
> diff --git a/mergetools/vimdiff b/mergetools/vimdiff
> index 56516ae271..3046dcd0dc 100644
> --- a/mergetools/vimdiff
> +++ b/mergetools/vimdiff
> @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ run_unit_tests () {
> done
> }
>
> - base_present=1
> + base_present=true
> LOCAL='lo cal'
> BASE='ba se'
> REMOTE="' '"
> @@ -635,10 +635,11 @@ run_unit_tests () {
> cat >expect <<-\EOF
> -f
> -c
> - echo | split | vertical split | 1b | wincmd l | vertical split | quit | wincmd l | 2b | wincmd j | 3b | tabdo windo diffthis
> + echo | -tabnew | leftabove split | leftabove vertical split | 1b | wincmd l | leftabove vertical split | 2b | wincmd l | 3b | wincmd j | 4b | tabnext | -tabnew | leftabove vertical split | 2b | wincmd l | 1b | tabnext | -tabnew | leftabove vertical split | 2b | wincmd l | 3b | tabnext | leftabove vertical split | leftabove split | 1b | wincmd j | leftabove split | 2b | wincmd j | 3b | wincmd l | 4b | tabdo windo diffthis
> -c
> tabfirst
> lo cal
> + ba se
> ' '
> mer ged
> EOF |
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
>> For one, as you said, "1" should be "true". That also changes the expected
>> output.
>
> OK, because "1" fails to execute, the expected output Dscho had
> (which is for the case without base) would become invalid when we
> use "true".
>
> Perhaps we should use "false" instead? Or do we need to test both?
How confident are you with the "leftabove" stuff? Is it solid
enough that it is safe to assume that we can queue this fix on top
of it?
This is how it would look like on top of the "leftabove" topic.
mergetools/vimdiff | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git c/mergetools/vimdiff w/mergetools/vimdiff
index b045b10fd7..f770b8fe24 100644
--- c/mergetools/vimdiff
+++ w/mergetools/vimdiff
@@ -414,8 +414,8 @@ merge_cmd () {
if $base_present
then
- eval "$merge_tool_path" \
- -f "$FINAL_CMD" "$LOCAL" "$BASE" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
+ eval '"$merge_tool_path"' \
+ -f "$FINAL_CMD" '"$LOCAL"' '"$BASE"' '"$REMOTE"' '"$MERGED"'
else
# If there is no BASE (example: a merge conflict in a new file
# with the same name created in both braches which didn't exist
@@ -424,8 +424,8 @@ merge_cmd () {
FINAL_CMD=$(echo "$FINAL_CMD" | \
sed -e 's:2b:quit:g' -e 's:3b:2b:g' -e 's:4b:3b:g')
- eval "$merge_tool_path" \
- -f "$FINAL_CMD" "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
+ eval '"$merge_tool_path"' \
+ -f "$FINAL_CMD" '"$LOCAL"' '"$REMOTE"' '"$MERGED"'
fi
ret="$?"
@@ -614,6 +614,37 @@ run_unit_tests () {
fi
done
+ # verify that `merge_cmd` handles paths with spaces
+ record_parameters () {
+ >actual
+ for arg
+ do
+ echo "$arg" >>actual
+ done
+ }
+
+ base_present=false
+ LOCAL='lo cal'
+ BASE='ba se'
+ REMOTE="' '"
+ MERGED='mer ged'
+ merge_tool_path=record_parameters
+
+ merge_cmd vimdiff || at_least_one_ko=true
+
+ cat >expect <<-\EOF
+ -f
+ -c
+ echo | leftabove split | leftabove vertical split | 1b | wincmd l | leftabove vertical split | quit | wincmd l | 2b | wincmd j | 3b | tabdo windo diffthis
+ -c
+ tabfirst
+ lo cal
+ ' '
+ mer ged
+ EOF
+
+ diff -u expect actual || at_least_one_ko=true
+
if test "$at_least_one_ko" = "true"
then
return 255 |
|
On the Git mailing list, Fernando Ramos wrote (reply to this): On 22/07/13 02:54PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> OK, because "1" fails to execute, the expected output Dscho had
> (which is for the case without base) would become invalid when we
> use "true".
>
> Perhaps we should use "false" instead? Or do we need to test both?
>
I think testing both is not really needed as the unit test is just making sure
that filenames with spaces are processed correctly. Whatever comes before
(which changes depending on the value of "base_present") doesn't really matter
as long as there is something.
If we have to select one ("true" or "false") using "true" seems more practical,
as that way the BASE file is also included, and thus an extra argument is
tested.
|
|
On the Git mailing list, Fernando Ramos wrote (reply to this): On 22/07/13 03:06PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> How confident are you with the "leftabove" stuff? Is it solid
> enough that it is safe to assume that we can queue this fix on top
> of it?
>
I would say yes. I have been testing it since without problems.
But it is also true that the "leftabove" patch fixes a corner case that can wait
until the next release.
I will keep testing it in any case and let you know if I find a case where it
doesn't work.
|
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@530622f. |
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): Fernando Ramos <[email protected]> writes:
> On 22/07/13 02:54PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> OK, because "1" fails to execute, the expected output Dscho had
>> (which is for the case without base) would become invalid when we
>> use "true".
>>
>> Perhaps we should use "false" instead? Or do we need to test both?
>>
> I think testing both is not really needed as the unit test is just making sure
> that filenames with spaces are processed correctly. Whatever comes before
> (which changes depending on the value of "base_present") doesn't really matter
> as long as there is something.
As the quoting glitch are distributed on both sides
if $base_present
then
eval "$merge_tool_path" \
-f "$FINAL_CMD" "$LOCAL" "$BASE" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
else
# If there is no BASE (example: a merge conflict in a new file
# with the same name created in both braches which didn't exist
# before), close all BASE windows using vim's "quit" command
FINAL_CMD=$(echo "$FINAL_CMD" | \
sed -e 's:2b:quit:g' -e 's:3b:2b:g' -e 's:4b:3b:g')
eval "$merge_tool_path" \
-f "$FINAL_CMD" "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
fi
I suspect you can fix only one, and carefully choose which side to
test, and leave the other side broken ;-)
In any case, to minimize disruption to Dscho's patch, I replaced the
"1" with "false" (which will make his patch pass the new test
without other stuff) and tweak its merge into 'seen' to adjust for
the "leftabove" topic.
Thanks.
|
|
There was a status update in the "New Topics" section about the branch Variable quoting fix in the vimdiff driver of "git mergetool" Expecting a reroll. cf. <[email protected]> source: <[email protected]> |
In 0041797 (vimdiff: new implementation with layout support, 2022-03-30), we introduced a completely new implementation of the `vimdiff` backend for `git mergetool`. In this implementation, we no longer call `vim` directly but we accumulate in the variable `FINAL_CMD` an arbitrary number of commands for `vim` to execute, which necessitates the use of `eval` to split the commands properly into multiple command-line arguments. That same `eval` command also needs to pass the paths to `vim`, and while it looks as if they are quoted correctly, that quoting only reaches the `eval` instruction and is lost after that, therefore paths that contain whitespace characters (or other characters that are interpreted by the POSIX shell) are handled incorrectly. This is a simple reproducer: git init -b main bam-merge-fail cd bam-merge-fail echo a>"a file.txt" git add "a file.txt" git commit -m "added 'a file.txt'" echo b>"a file.txt" git add "a file.txt" git commit -m "diverged b 'a file.txt'" git checkout -b c HEAD~ echo c>"a file.txt" git add "a file.txt" git commit -m "diverged c 'a file.txt'" git checkout main git merge c git mergetool --tool=vimdiff With Git v2.37.0/v2.37.1, this will open 7 buffers, not four, and not display the correct contents at all. To fix this, let's not expand the variables containing the path parameters before passing them to the `eval` command, but let that command expand the variables instead. This fixes git-for-windows#3945 Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
dscho
force-pushed
the
fix-vimdiff-with-spaces-in-paths
branch
from
dde9c7c to
7de381b
Compare
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]>
writes:
> if $base_present
> then
> - eval "$merge_tool_path" \
> - -f "$FINAL_CMD" "$LOCAL" "$BASE" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
> + eval '"$merge_tool_path"' \
> + -f "$FINAL_CMD" '"$LOCAL"' '"$BASE"' '"$REMOTE"' '"$MERGED"'
> else
> # If there is no BASE (example: a merge conflict in a new file
> # with the same name created in both braches which didn't exist
> @@ -424,8 +424,8 @@ merge_cmd () {
> FINAL_CMD=$(echo "$FINAL_CMD" | \
> sed -e 's:2b:quit:g' -e 's:3b:2b:g' -e 's:4b:3b:g')
>
> - eval "$merge_tool_path" \
> - -f "$FINAL_CMD" "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
> + eval '"$merge_tool_path"' \
> + -f "$FINAL_CMD" '"$LOCAL"' '"$REMOTE"' '"$MERGED"'
> fi
If there were another syntactic fix we need in the future, we may by
mistake fix one but not the other, and the test we add in this patch
checks only one side but not the other. In a follow-up we may want
to unify the two eval invocations to make the testing of this part
more robust.
But as a minimum and obvious fix, stopping at the above is
appropriate for this patch.
> + ...
> + diff -u expect actual || at_least_one_ko=true
I wonder if we still should care about platforms that need to set
GIT_TEST_CMP_USE_COPIED_CONTEXT while running our tests. If we use
"diff -u" hardcoded like this here, we are declaring that they are
now unwelcome to run our tests.
It might be just the matter of using "cmp -s" here (or run "diff"
without any option). Do we care about emitting the difference in
the output? I doubt it.
> if test "$at_least_one_ko" = "true"
> then
> return 255
Thanks. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@145377a. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@236050e. |
|
This patch series was integrated into next via git@4273bbd. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@8a7545e. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@761650e. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@cb29110. |
|
There was a status update in the "Cooking" section about the branch Variable quoting fix in the vimdiff driver of "git mergetool" Will merge to 'master'. source: <[email protected]> |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@83051c9. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@d7856b9. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@9176609. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@4483ea9. |
|
This patch series was integrated into master via git@4483ea9. |
|
This patch series was integrated into next via git@4483ea9. |
|
Closed via 4483ea9. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In git-for-windows#3945, it was reported that as of v2.37.0,
git mergetool --tool=vimdifffails to handle paths containing spaces. Let's fix that.Changes since v1:
base_present=falseinstead of the misleadingbase_present=1(thanks Junio & Fernando!)Cc: Fernando Ramos [email protected]