-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix ignoring input files for symlink reasons #4222
Conversation
This relates to psf#4015, psf#4161 and the behaviour of os.getcwd() Black is a big user of pathlib and as such loves doing `.resolve()`, since for a long time it was the only good way of getting an absolute path in pathlib. However, this has two problems: The first minor problem is performance, e.g. in psf#3751 I (safely) got rid of a bunch of `.resolve()` which made Black 40% faster on cached runs. The second more important problem is that always resolving symlinks results in unintuitive exclusion behaviour. For instance, a gitignored symlink should never alter formatting of your actual code. This kind of thing was reported by users a few times. In psf#3846, I improved the exclusion rule logic for symlinks in `gen_python_files` and everything was good. But `gen_python_files` isn't enough, there's also `get_sources`, which handles user specified paths directly (instead of files Black discovers). So in psf#4015, I made a very similar change to psf#3846 for `get_sources`, and this is where some problems began. The core issue was the line: ``` root_relative_path = path.absolute().relative_to(root).as_posix() ``` The first issue is that despite root being computed from user inputs, we call `.resolve()` while computing it (likely unecessarily). Which means that `path` may not actually be relative to `root`. So I started off this PR trying to fix that, when I ran into the second issue. Which is that `os.getcwd()` (as called by `os.path.abspath` or `Path.absolute` or `Path.cwd`) also often resolves symlinks! ``` >>> import os >>> os.environ.get("PWD") '/Users/shantanu/dev/black/symlink/bug' >>> os.getcwd() '/Users/shantanu/dev/black/actual/bug' ``` This also meant that the breakage often would not show up when input relative paths. This doesn't affect `gen_python_files` / psf#3846 because things are always absolute and known to be relative to `root`. Anyway, it looks like psf#4161 fixed the crash by just swallowing the error and ignoring the file. Instead, we should just try to compute the actual relative path. I think this PR should be quite safe, but we could also consider reverting some of the previous changes; the associated issues weren't too popular. At the same time, I think there's still behaviour that can be improved and I kind of want to make larger changes, but maybe I'll save that for if we do something like psf#3952 Hopefully fixes psf#4205, fixes psf#4209, actual fix for psf#4077
@@ -734,6 +734,7 @@ def get_sources( | |||
"""Compute the set of files to be formatted.""" | |||
sources: Set[Path] = set() | |||
|
|||
assert root.is_absolute(), f"INTERNAL ERROR: `root` must be absolute but is {root}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have a similar assert in gen_python_files
(which this usually calls)
root_relative_path = get_root_relative_path(path, root, report) | ||
|
||
if root_relative_path is None: | ||
if resolves_outside_root_or_cannot_stat(path, root, report): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As you may have guessed from the name, the difference between this and get_root_relative_path
(from #4161) is the .resolve()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This helped me located where the filtering happens and I just added sources.add(path)
before the old "continue"in line 755/756 and my problem was solved.
Tho this, if you need, I can still test it against my case where my home folder ~
was set to a symlink like /homes/user
-> /external/homes/user
. Please don't hesitate to tell me if you need any help! Thanks for the great work again!
return path.absolute().relative_to(root) | ||
except ValueError: | ||
pass | ||
root_parent = next((p for p in path.parents if _cached_resolve(p) == root), None) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added _cached_resolve
mainly in case this loop x many input files is expensive
@@ -339,7 +348,8 @@ def gen_python_files( | |||
|
|||
assert root.is_absolute(), f"INTERNAL ERROR: `root` must be absolute but is {root}" | |||
for child in paths: | |||
root_relative_path = child.absolute().relative_to(root).as_posix() | |||
assert child.is_absolute() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not new, this should be guaranteed by path = root / (path.resolve().relative_to(root))
in get_sources
src=["-"], | ||
expected=[], | ||
stdin_filename=stdin_filename, | ||
) | ||
|
||
@patch("black.find_project_root", lambda *args: (THIS_DIR.resolve(), None)) | ||
def test_get_sources_with_stdin(self) -> None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not really related, but while I was here I removed some monkeypatching since it's not needed. We probably do a little too much mocking, so the new tests touch the file system
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree we should prefer to avoid mocking.
(fake@)hauntsaninja, Thank you for your continuous and beautiful work, I was waiting for this for a while, and I thought #4221 solves this problem. But sadly, no. |
PabloLION, thanks for taking a look at this PR. Does this PR solve the thing blocking you? If it does, we can make a release relatively quickly once it's merged. |
I replied between the code #4222 (comment) |
def test_get_sources_with_stdin_symlink_outside_root( | ||
self, | ||
) -> None: | ||
path = THIS_DIR / "data" / "include_exclude_tests" | ||
stdin_filename = str(path / "b/exclude/a.py") | ||
outside_root_symlink = Path("/target_directory/a.py") | ||
root = Path("target_dir/").resolve().absolute() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
target_dir/ or target_directory?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
target_dir
is right. Rename doesn't affect semantics, I did it to make the test clearer, the relevant difference is /target_directory
is absolute and so is outside root
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, it would have been slightly clearer if you used two names that didn't look like one was a variant of the other, e.g. target_dir1
and target_dir2
. What you have now is fine too though.
src=["-"], | ||
expected=[], | ||
stdin_filename=stdin_filename, | ||
) | ||
|
||
@patch("black.find_project_root", lambda *args: (THIS_DIR.resolve(), None)) | ||
def test_get_sources_with_stdin(self) -> None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree we should prefer to avoid mocking.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, thanks. Some optional nits.
Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <[email protected]>
This relates to #4015, #4161 and the behaviour of os.getcwd()
Black is a big user of pathlib and as such loves doing
.resolve()
, since for a long time it was the only good way of getting an absolute path in pathlib. However, this has two problems:The first minor problem is performance, e.g. in #3751 I (safely) got rid of a bunch of
.resolve()
which made Black 40% faster on cached runs.The second more important problem is that always resolving symlinks results in unintuitive exclusion behaviour. For instance, a gitignored symlink should never alter formatting of your actual code. This kind of thing was reported by users a few times.
In #3846, I improved the exclusion rule logic for symlinks in
gen_python_files
and everything was good.But
gen_python_files
isn't enough, there's alsoget_sources
, which handles user specified paths directly (instead of files Black discovers). So in #4015, I made a very similar change to #3846 forget_sources
, and this is where some problems began.The core issue was the line:
The first issue is that despite root being computed from user inputs, we call
.resolve()
while computing root (likely unecessarily). Which means thatpath
may not actually be relative toroot
. So I started off this PR trying to fix that, when I ran into the second issue. Which is thatos.getcwd()
(as called byos.path.abspath
orPath.absolute
orPath.cwd
) also often resolves symlinks!This also meant that the breakage often would not show up when input relative paths.
This doesn't affect
gen_python_files
/ #3846 because things are known to be relative toroot
and always absolute.Anyway, it looks like #4161 fixed the crash by just swallowing the error and ignoring the file. Instead, we should just try to compute the actual relative path. I think this PR should be quite safe, but we could also consider reverting some of the previous changes; the associated issues weren't too popular.
At the same time, I think there's still behaviour that can be improved and I kind of want to make larger changes, but maybe I'll save that for if we do something like #3952
Fixes #4205, fixes #4209, original report in #4077