On 1/10/2021 8:13 AM, Abhishek Kumar wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 10:23:54PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote: >> Your tests in this patch seem very thorough, covering all the cases >> I could think to create this strange situation. I even tried creating >> cases where the overflow would be necessary. The following test actually >> fails on the "graph_read_expect 6" due to the extra chunk, not the 'write' >> process I was trying to trick into failure. >> >> diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh >> index 8e90f3423b..cfef8e52b9 100755 >> --- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh >> +++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh >> @@ -453,6 +453,20 @@ test_expect_success 'prevent regression for duplicate commits across layers' ' >> git -C dup commit-graph verify >> ' >> >> +test_expect_success 'upgrade to generation data succeeds when there was none' ' >> + ( >> + cd dup && >> + rm -rf .git/objects/info/commit-graph* && >> + GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH_NO_GDAT=1 git commit-graph \ >> + write --reachable && >> + GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="1980-01-01 00:00" git commit --allow-empty -m one && >> + GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="2090-01-01 00:00" git commit --allow-empty -m two && >> + GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="2000-01-01 00:00" git commit --allow-empty -m three && >> + git commit-graph write --reachable && >> + graph_read_expect 6 >> + ) >> +' > > I am not sure what this test adds over the existing generation data > overflow related tests added in t5318-commit-graph.sh Good point. -Stolee
