Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 2. Hard-coded object ids in tests: As Stefan hinted, many tests beyond
>    t00* make assumptions about the exact values of object ids.  That's
>    bad for maintainability for other reasons beyond the hash function
>    transition, too.
>
>    It should be possible to suss them out by patching git's sha1
>    routine to use the ones-complement of sha1 (~sha1) instead and
>    seeing which tests fail.

One particularly nasty one is t1512-rev-parse-disambiguation that
ensures that the abbreviation and disambiguation works correctly.
It uses a set of objects (tags, commits, trees and blobs) whose
object names all begin with number of "0"; which will of course
become useless once we change the hash function.

No matter what new hash function is chosen, we'd need a similar
test to ensure that disambiguation works correctly, so one of the
tasks for hash migration is to port (not drop) this test.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]