On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:56:45PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > +test_bitmap_traversal () {
> > + if test "$1" = "--no-confirm-bitmaps"
> > + then
> > + shift
> > + elif cmp "$1" "$2"
> > + then
> > + echo >&2 "identical raw outputs; are you sure bitmaps were used?"
> > + return 1
>
> Since you converted two 'error's to BUG earlier in this series...
>
> This helper function was added in ea047a8eb4 (t5310: factor out bitmap
> traversal comparison, 2020-02-14), and so I Cc: its author and quote
> part of its commit message:
>
> While we're at it, let's also try to confirm that the bitmap output did
> indeed use bitmaps. Since the code internally falls back to the
> non-bitmap path in some cases, the tests are at risk of becoming trivial
> noops.
>
> This is a bit fragile, as not all outputs will differ (e.g., looking at
> only the commits from a fully-bitmapped pack will end up exactly the
> same as the normal traversal order, since it also matches the pack
> order). So we'll provide an escape hatch by which tests can disable this
> check (which should only be used after manually confirming that bitmaps
> kicked in).
>
> Shouldn't this be a BUG as well? I think this should be a BUG.
I dunno. I guess you are thinking of the case where somebody adds a new
caller but fails to invoke Git correctly. Which would be a bug in the
test script.
But it could also easily be due to Git changing how it behaves in a
certain circumstance. And maybe the solution is changing the test to
adapt, or maybe we just found a bug in Git.
TBH, I do not care that much either way. Either way, I think somebody
would notice the problem.
-Peff
