Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] apply: reject input that touches outside $cwd

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

Right, I do not think these tests will _fail_ when the filesystem does
not support symlinks. But nor are they actually testing anything
interesting. They would pass on such a system even without your patch,
as we would fail to apply even the symlink creation part of the patch.

I thought we write out the contents of the symbolic link as a
regular file on such a filesystem, and as long as we do not expect
"test -h expected-to-be-symlink-we-just-created" to succeed we would
be fine.

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:23:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Right, I do not think these tests will _fail_ when the filesystem does
not support symlinks. But nor are they actually testing anything
interesting. They would pass on such a system even without your patch,
as we would fail to apply even the symlink creation part of the patch.

I thought we write out the contents of the symbolic link as a
regular file on such a filesystem, and as long as we do not expect
"test -h expected-to-be-symlink-we-just-created" to succeed we would
be fine.

But wouldn't we still fail writing "foo/bar" at that point if "foo" is a
regular file (again, we should never do this, but that is the point of
the test).

-Peff