On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:19:13PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 11:22:59AM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > So, 'test oidmap' from the previous patch prints the value we want to
> > check with:
> >
> > printf("%u\n", sha1hash(oid.hash));
> >
> > First, since object ids inherently make more sense as hex values, it
> > would be more appropriate to print that hash with the '%x' format
> > specifier, and then we wouldn't need Perl's hex() anymore, and thus
> > could swap the order of the first four bytes in oidmap's hash without
> > relying on Perl, e.g. with:
> >
> > sed -e 's/^\(..\)\(..\)\(..\)\(..\).*/\4\3\2\1/'
> >
> > Second, and more importantly, the need for swapping the byte order
> > indicates that this test would fail on big-endian systems, I'm afraid.
> > So I think we need an additional bswap32() on the printing side, and
> > then could further simplify 'test_oidhash':
>
> I agree with all your points about using hex and pushing the logic into
> test-oidmap.c. BUT.
>
> At the point where we are normalizing byte order of the hashes, I have
> to wonder: why do we care about testing the hash value in the first
> place? We care that oidmap can store and retrieve values, and that it
> performs well. But as long as it does those things, I don't think
> anybody cares if it uses the first 4 bytes of the sha1 or the last 4.
>
> I know there are testing philosophies that go to this level of
> white-box testing, but I don't think we usually do in Git. A unit
> test of oidmap's externally visible behavior seems like the right
> level to me.
That's a good point... but then why does 't0011-hashmap.sh' do it in
the first place? As far as I understood this t0016 mainly follows
suit of t0011.
