From: "Martin Ågren" <martin.agren@gmail.com>
To: Brandon Richardson <brandon1024.br@gmail.com>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] commit-tree: add missing --gpg-sign flag
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 10:02:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN0heSr3a9H46j3wiTwwbw7HFh4+4aFs5-qe=gtxYB3vC73KAA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190119232334.31646-2-brandon1024.br@gmail.com>
Hi Brandon,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 00:24, Brandon Richardson
<brandon1024.br@gmail.com> wrote:
> # explicit -S of course must sign.
> echo 10 | git commit-tree -S HEAD^{tree} >oid &&
> test_line_count = 1 oid &&
> - git tag tenth-signed $(cat oid)
> + git tag tenth-signed $(cat oid) &&
> +
> + # --gpg-sign[=<key-id>] must sign.
> + echo 11 | git commit-tree --gpg-sign HEAD^{tree} >oid &&
> + test_line_count = 1 oid &&
> + git tag eleventh-signed $(cat oid) &&
> + echo 12 | git commit-tree --gpg-sign=B7227189 HEAD^{tree} >oid &&
> + test_line_count = 1 oid &&
> + git tag twelfth-signed-alt $(cat oid)
> '
Thank you for following through.
Let's see if there any opinions from others about this more verbose
construction, vs placing the oid in a variable and quoting it. We
obviously went several years without realizing that using $(...) as an
object id risked falling back to HEAD and that a completely broken `git
commit-tree -S` would pass the test. So being over-careful and extra
obvious might very well be the right thing.
> test_expect_success GPG 'verify and show signatures' '
> (
> for commit in initial second merge fourth-signed \
> - fifth-signed sixth-signed seventh-signed tenth-signed
> + fifth-signed sixth-signed seventh-signed tenth-signed \
> + eleventh-signed
> do
> git verify-commit $commit &&
> git show --pretty=short --show-signature $commit >actual &&
> @@ -82,7 +91,7 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'verify and show signatures' '
> done
> ) &&
> (
> - for commit in eighth-signed-alt
> + for commit in eighth-signed-alt twelfth-signed-alt
> do
> git show --pretty=short --show-signature $commit >actual &&
> grep "Good signature from" actual &&
Ah, good catch. I didn't notice that we had a separate for-loop for this
key. This comes from 4baf839fe0 ("t7510: test a commit signed by an
unknown key", 2014-06-16). What we want to test here is something
different, namely that we're using a specific, named key. But FWIW, I
think we're fine, and that we're not abusing the existing difference
between these two loops too much.
Martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-20 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-19 23:23 [PATCH v4 1/2] t7510: invoke git as part of &&-chain Brandon Richardson
2019-01-19 23:23 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] commit-tree: add missing --gpg-sign flag Brandon Richardson
2019-01-20 9:02 ` Martin Ågren [this message]
2019-01-22 19:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-01-22 21:43 ` Martin Ågren
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='CAN0heSr3a9H46j3wiTwwbw7HFh4+4aFs5-qe=gtxYB3vC73KAA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=martin.agren@gmail.com \
--cc=brandon1024.br@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/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 NNTP newsgroup(s).