On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 02:56, brian m. carlson
<sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Ensure that we pass the object-format capability in the synthesized test
> data so that this test works with algorithms other than SHA-1.
Right.
> In addition, add an additional test using the old data for when we're
> using SHA-1 so that we can be sure that we preserve backwards
> compatibility with servers not offering the object-format capability.
I'll have some questions on this below.
> @@ -62,8 +63,8 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' '
> test_copy_bytes 10 <fetch_body >fetch_body.trunc &&
> hash_next=$(git commit-tree -p HEAD -m next HEAD^{tree}) &&
> {
> - printf "%s %s refs/heads/newbranch\\0report-status\\n" \
> - "$ZERO_OID" "$hash_next" | packetize &&
> + printf "%s %s refs/heads/newbranch\\0report-status object-format=%s\\n" \
> + "$ZERO_OID" "$hash_next" "$(test_oid algo)" | packetize &&
> printf 0000 &&
> echo "$hash_next" | git pack-objects --stdout
> } >push_body &&
Makes sense.
> @@ -117,6 +118,15 @@ test_expect_success GZIP 'push plain' '
> test_cmp act.head exp.head
> '
>
> +test_expect_success GZIP 'push plain with SHA-1' '
> + test_when_finished "git branch -D newbranch" &&
> + test_http_env receive push_body &&
> + verify_http_result "200 OK" &&
> + git rev-parse newbranch >act.head &&
> + echo "$hash_next" >exp.head &&
> + test_cmp act.head exp.head
> +'
> +
Hmmm. Isn't this an exact copy of the 'push plain' test immediately
preceding it? The commit message talks about using the "old data"
(i.e., without "object-format=%s"?). Should this test use a variant of
push_body where we're not adding "object-format"? I'm not sure I grok
what exactly we want to test here.. And does it really belong in
t/t*-content-length.sh?
Martin
