bisect: fix handling of `help` and invalid subcommands
PATCH 1/1 bisect: fix handling of `help` and invalid subcommands
From: Ruoyu Zhong <[email protected]>
As documented in git-bisect(1), git bisect help should display usage information. However, since the migration of git bisect to a full builtin command in 73fce29427 (Turn git bisect into a full built-in, 2022-11-10), this behavior was broken. Running git bisect help would, instead of showing usage, either fail silently if already in a bisect session, or otherwise trigger an interactive autostart prompt asking "Do you want me to do it for you [Y/n]?".
Similarly, since df63421be9 (bisect--helper: handle states directly, 2022-11-10), running invalid subcommands like git bisect foobar also led to the same behavior.
This occurred because help and other unrecognized subcommands were being unconditionally passed to bisect_state, which then called bisect_autostart, triggering the interactive prompt.
Fix this by:
1. Adding explicit handling for the help subcommand to show usage;
2. Validating that unrecognized commands are actually valid state commands before calling bisect_state;
3. Showing an error with usage for truly invalid commands.
This ensures that git bisect help displays the usage as documented, and invalid commands fail cleanly without entering interactive mode. Alternate terms are still handled correctly through check_and_set_terms.
---
bisect: fix handling of help and invalid subcommands
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-git-2078%2FZhongRuoyu%2Fgit-bisect-subcommands-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-git-2078/ZhongRuoyu/git-bisect-subcommands-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/git/git/pull/2078
builtin/bisect.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
builtin/bisect.c +5 -1
@@ -1453,9 +1453,13 @@ int cmd_bisect(int argc,if (!argc)usage_msg_opt (_ ("need a command" ), git_bisect_usage, options); +if (!strcmp (argv[0 ],"help" )) +usage_with_options (git_bisect_usage, options); +set_terms (&terms,"bad" ,"good" );get_terms (&terms); -if (check_and_set_terms (&terms, argv[0 ])) +if (check_and_set_terms (&terms, argv[0 ]) || + !one_of (argv[0 ], terms.term_good, terms.term_bad,NULL ))usage_msg_optf (_ ("unknown command: '%s'" ), git_bisect_usage, options, argv[0 ]); res =bisect_state (&terms, argc, argv);
base-commit: 81f86aacc4eb74cdb9c2c8082d36d2070c666045
Signature · 1 line
gitgitgadget
Quoted 12 lines · Ruoyu Zhong via GitGitGadget
From: Ruoyu Zhong <[email protected]>
As documented in git-bisect(1),
git bisect helpshould display usage information. However, since the migration ofgit bisectto a full builtin command in73fce29427(Turngit bisectinto a full built-in, 2022-11-10), this behavior was broken. Runninggit bisect helpwould, instead of showing usage, either fail silently if already in a bisect session, or otherwise trigger an interactive autostart prompt asking "Do you want me to do it for you [Y/n]?".
Good catch!
FWIW, in this project we describe the buggy behavior in the present tense (« is broken », « Running git bisect shows », etc.)
Quoted 36 lines
Similarly, since
df63421be9(bisect--helper: handle states directly, 2022-11-10), running invalid subcommands likegit bisect foobaralso led to the same behavior.This occurred because
helpand other unrecognized subcommands were being unconditionally passed tobisect_state, which then calledbisect_autostart, triggering the interactive prompt.Fix this by:
1. Adding explicit handling for thehelpsubcommand to show usage;
2. Validating that unrecognized commands are actually valid state commands before callingbisect_state;
3. Showing an error with usage for truly invalid commands.This ensures that
git bisect helpdisplays the usage as documented, and invalid commands fail cleanly without entering interactive mode. Alternate terms are still handled correctly throughcheck_and_set_terms.Signed-off-by Ruoyu Zhong <[email protected]>---
bisect: fix handling of help and invalid subcommandsPublished-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-git-2078%2FZhongRuoyu%2Fgit-bisect-subcommands-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-git-2078/ZhongRuoyu/git-bisect-subcommands-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/git/git/pull/2078
builtin/bisect.c| 6 +++++-1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)builtin/bisect.c +0
-0
builtin/bisect.c int cmd_bisect(int argc, · line 1458
Quoted 6 lines
builtin/bisect.c +3
-0@@ -1453,9 +1453,13 @@ int cmd_bisect(int argc,if (!argc)usage_msg_opt (_ ("need a command" ), git_bisect_usage, options); +if (!strcmp (argv[0 ],"help" )) +usage_with_options (git_bisect_usage, options); +
From an extremely quick look at the code, this might be better handled with a new OPT_SUBCOMMAND, though that might mean making the options array statically scoped to this file rather than the function.
It would also be nice to update the usage to match the manual while we’re here, which presumably in turn affects the test between command usage and manuals.
Quoted 9 lines
builtin/bisect.c +2
-1set_terms (&terms,"bad" ,"good" );get_terms (&terms); -if (check_and_set_terms (&terms, argv[0 ])) +if (check_and_set_terms (&terms, argv[0 ]) || + !one_of (argv[0 ], terms.term_good, terms.term_bad,NULL ))usage_msg_optf (_ ("unknown command: '%s'" ), git_bisect_usage, options, argv[0 ]); res =bisect_state (&terms, argc, argv);
Quoted 3 lines
base-commit:
81f86aacc4eb74cdb9c2c8082d36d2070c666045--
gitgitgadget
I think this part is OK, since we only intend to check this when using the « git bisect <term> » form.
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the review!
Quoted 5 lines · Ben Knoble
Good catch!
FWIW, in this project we describe the buggy behavior in the present tense (« is broken », « Running git bisect shows », etc.)
Thanks! Will keep this in mind.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
builtin/bisect.c +0
-0@@ -1453,9 +1453,13 @@ int cmd_bisect(int argc,if (!argc)usage_msg_opt (_ ("need a command" ), git_bisect_usage, options);
Quoted 5 lines
builtin/bisect.c int cmd_bisect(int argc, · line 1458
Quoted 3 lines
builtin/bisect.c +3
-0+if (!strcmp (argv[0 ],"help" )) +usage_with_options (git_bisect_usage, options); +From an extremely quick look at the code, this might be better handled with a new
OPT_SUBCOMMAND, though that might mean making the options array statically scoped to this file rather than the function.
I intended to keep it simple so I did not make it an OPT_SUBCOMMAND at the first place. Given that Junio is okay with it, I'm going to keep it as is for now. Still happy to turn this into an OPT_SUBCOMMAND if you would like.
Quoted 1 line
It would also be nice to update the usage to match the manual while we’re here, which presumably in turn affects the test between command usage and manuals.
Thanks for pointing that out! Yes, I think so too. Will do in a separate patch, if you agree, in order not to digress too much.
Regards,
Ruoyu
Quoted 30 lines · Ruoyu Zhong
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the review!
Quoted 3 lines · Ben Knoble
Good catch!
FWIW, in this project we describe the buggy behavior in the present tense (« is broken », « Running git bisect shows », etc.)Thanks! Will keep this in mind.
Quoted 11 lines
builtin/bisect.c int cmd_bisect(int argc, · line 1457
Quoted 10 lines
builtin/bisect.c +3
-0@@ -1453,9 +1453,13 @@ int cmd_bisect(int argc,if (!argc)usage_msg_opt (_ ("need a command" ), git_bisect_usage, options); +if (!strcmp (argv[0 ],"help" )) +usage_with_options (git_bisect_usage, options); +From an extremely quick look at the code, this might be better handled with a new
OPT_SUBCOMMAND, though that might mean making the options array statically scoped to this file rather than the function.I intended to keep it simple so I did not make it an
OPT_SUBCOMMANDat the first place. Given that Junio is okay with it, I'm going to keep it as is for now. Still happy to turn this into anOPT_SUBCOMMANDif you would like.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
It would also be nice to update the usage to match the manual while we’re here, which presumably in turn affects the test between command usage and manuals.
Thanks for pointing that out! Yes, I think so too. Will do in a separate patch, if you agree, in order not to digress too much.
Separate is fine, although it might have been nice as part of a series with this one. Since Junio has already marked it to queue, no reason to revisit all the above for this patch. Thanks !
Quoted 10 lines · Ruoyu Zhong via GitGitGadget
From: Ruoyu Zhong <[email protected]>
As documented in git-bisect(1),
git bisect helpshould display usage information. However, since the migration ofgit bisectto a full builtin command in73fce29427(Turngit bisectinto a full built-in, 2022-11-10), this behavior was broken. Runninggit bisect helpwould, instead of showing usage, either fail silently if already in a bisect session, or otherwise trigger an interactive autostart prompt asking "Do you want me to do it for you [Y/n]?".
Quoted 7 lines
Similarly, since
df63421be9(bisect--helper: handle states directly, 2022-11-10), running invalid subcommands likegit bisect foobaralso led to the same behavior.This occurred because
helpand other unrecognized subcommands were being unconditionally passed tobisect_state, which then calledbisect_autostart, triggering the interactive prompt.
Very good observations.
builtin/bisect.c int cmd_bisect(int argc, · line 1457
Quoted 10 lines
builtin/bisect.c +2
-0@@ -1453,9 +1453,13 @@ int cmd_bisect(int argc,if (!argc)usage_msg_opt (_ ("need a command" ), git_bisect_usage, options); +if (!strcmp (argv[0 ],"help" )) +usage_with_options (git_bisect_usage, options);
I briefly wondered why
$ git grep 'strcmp.*"help"'
gives a single hit in parse-options.c but that is simply because "git bisect" is an oddball. Everybody, including "git bisect" itself, takes "git <cmd> --help", but in addition, "git bisect" also takes "git bisect help". So this addition is unfortunate but cannot be helped (no pun intended). In an ideal world, as we support the bog standard "--help", if we could remove "help" as a subcommand, then the other part of this patch would take care of "bisect help" without this part by saying "unknown command" ;-) but we cannot retroactively do so now.
I also wonder if it would be cleaner to add "help" as a genuine subcommand to the options[] table just like all the other subcommands. The above would not be needed if we did so. But I do not see huge upside for doing so (i.e., a single strcmp() with a call like we see above, vs. a new helper function to make the same call, to usage_with_options()), so what is written in this patch is perfectly fine.
builtin/bisect.c int cmd_bisect(int argc, · line 1464
Quoted 7 lines
builtin/bisect.c +2
-1set_terms (&terms,"bad" ,"good" );get_terms (&terms); -if (check_and_set_terms (&terms, argv[0 ])) +if (check_and_set_terms (&terms, argv[0 ]) || + !one_of (argv[0 ], terms.term_good, terms.term_bad,NULL ))usage_msg_optf (_ ("unknown command: '%s'" ), git_bisect_usage, options, argv[0 ]);
This change is a bit hard to reason about, so let me think aloud.
If we were saying "git bisect olde" after somehow changing bad/good to newe/olde, then we do not want to say "unknown command", and the way it avoids that is to see if the given command is one of the terms check_and_set_terms() have updated.
In other words, if argv[0] caused check_and_set_terms() to return non-zero, we do not have to do "unknown command", because the helper would have issued a warning already. When it returns 0, it may be because it saw a valid command "skip", etc. that cannot be a custom good/bad/new/old (in which case our one_of() would be false and we end up saying "unknown command"---have I just spot a bug???), or we haven't set custom terms and argv[0] is one of bad/good/new/old (in which case our one_of() would be true and we avoid saying "unknown command").
And it turns out that my finding about the 'skip' etc. is not a bug, as these valid commands that cannot be good/bad/new/old aliases are already caught by parse_options() call and we know argv[0] is not such a valid subcommand.
So after all this looks good.
Thanks. Will queue.
Hi Junio,
I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful analysis and I resonate with your points. Specifically:
Quoted 7 lines
I also wonder if it would be cleaner to add "help" as a genuine subcommand to the options[] table just like all the other subcommands. The above would not be needed if we did so. But I do not see huge upside for doing so (i.e., a single
strcmp()with a call like we see above, vs. a new helper function to make the same call, tousage_with_options()), so what is written in this patch is perfectly fine.
Agreed. Will keep this as is, as I also mentioned in my response to Ben.
Quoted 25 lines
Quoted 7 lines
set_terms(&terms, "bad", "good");get_terms(&terms);
- if (check_and_set_terms(&terms, argv[0]))
+ if (check_and_set_terms(&terms, argv[0])||
+ !one_of(argv[0], terms.term_good, terms.term_bad, NULL))
usage_msg_optf(_("unknown command: '%s'"),git_bisect_usage,options, argv[0]);This change is a bit hard to reason about, so let me think aloud.
If we were saying "git bisect olde" after somehow changing bad/good to newe/olde, then we do not want to say "unknown command", and the way it avoids that is to see if the given command is one of the terms
check_and_set_terms()have updated.In other words, if argv[0] caused
check_and_set_terms()to return non-zero, we do not have to do "unknown command", because the helper would have issued a warning already. When it returns 0, it may be because it saw a valid command "skip", etc. that cannot be a custom good/bad/new/old (in which case ourone_of()would be false and we end up saying "unknown command"---have I just spot a bug???), or we haven't set custom terms and argv[0] is one of bad/good/new/old (in which case ourone_of()would be true and we avoid saying "unknown command").
Quoted 6 lines
And it turns out that my finding about the 'skip' etc. is not a bug, as these valid commands that cannot be good/bad/new/old aliases are already caught by
parse_options()call and we know argv[0] is not such a valid subcommand.So after all this looks good.
Thank you for walking through this. This is very helpful and also matches my own thought process when I first looked at it. The key is that this part of the code is only reached if fn is still NULL after parse_options, i.e., argv[0] is not one of the known subcommands.
Regards,
Ruoyu