SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I'm not sure what you mean by "consistency check". The resulting trie > looked as expected both before and after b9317d55a3, i.e. each trie > node had the right contents, value, and children, as far as I could > tell. The issue was in the lookup function. I saw the change to the code as a band-aid, which wouldn't have been necessary if we had the missing refs/ entry. Fully populating the leading levels explicitly may give the application more flexibility by yielding results different from hardcoded -1 like the patched code gives. But perhaps treating a path that matches a missing intermediate level just like a path that did not match anything in the trie is what we want anyway, so I guess the code change was the right thing (as opposed to a band-aid). Thanks.
