Re: [PATCH] t1402: test forbidden characters in refnames
From: Patrick Steinhardt <hidden>
Date: 2026-08-19 11:20:13
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 08:43:56PM +0000, Nikolaus Schuetz via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: Nikolaus Schuetz <redacted> git-check-ref-format(1) documents that a refname cannot contain a space, tilde, caret, colon, question-mark, asterisk or open-bracket, and that it cannot be the single character "@". Of these, only "?" was tested as a character embedded in an otherwise-valid refname; "*" was checked only as a lone character or with --refspec-pattern. Add the remaining forbidden characters in that embedded form, and check that "@" alone is rejected even with --allow-onelevel -- where "@" is otherwise a valid refname component, as "refs/@" confirms.
Okay.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh b/t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh index cabc516ae9..bc1e878a0f 100755 --- a/t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh +++ b/t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh@@ -51,12 +51,20 @@ invalid_ref '.refs/foo' invalid_ref 'refs/heads/foo.' invalid_ref 'heads/foo..bar' invalid_ref 'heads/foo?bar' +invalid_ref 'heads/foo~bar' +invalid_ref 'heads/foo^bar' +invalid_ref 'heads/foo:bar' +invalid_ref 'heads/foo*bar' +invalid_ref 'heads/foo[bar' +invalid_ref 'heads/foo bar'
This feels a tiny bit excessive, but I guess it does not hurt to enforce
this property, especially now that it's so easy to add new backends.
One thing I was briefly wondering is whether we could maybe have a
simple loop here, as this feels quite repetitive. We could for example:
for c in '?' '~' '^' ':' '*' '[' ' '
do
invalid_ref "heads/foo${c}bar"
done
By the way, one weird bit: is it intentional that all of these really
use "heads/something" instead of "refs/heads/something"? I guess it
ultimately doesn't matter.
valid_ref 'foo./bar' invalid_ref 'heads/foo.lock' invalid_ref 'heads///foo.lock' invalid_ref 'foo.lock/bar' invalid_ref 'foo.lock///bar' valid_ref 'heads/foo@bar' +valid_ref 'refs/@' +invalid_ref '@' --allow-onelevel
This one certainly is a good addition, as these are quite a bit more subtle. Thanks! Patrick