On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 12:13:48PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Thanks for the update, and sorry that it took me so long to get to. I
see that this still hasn't quite made its way to 'next', so I'll just
add one comment.
> +test_expect_success 'pack-object <stdin parsing: --stdin-packs handles garbage' '
> + cat >in <<-EOF &&
> + $(git -C pack-object-stdin rev-parse one)
> + $(git -C pack-object-stdin rev-parse two)
> + EOF
I see that you left my suggestion to inline this here-doc with the
actual 'pack-objects' invocation below alone, which is fine. I think
that it does help the readability, too, since it separates the input
from the command its being fed to.
> + # That we get "two" and not "one" has to do with OID
> + # ordering. It happens to be the same here under SHA-1 and
> + # SHA-256. See commentary in pack-objects.c
> + cat >err.expect <<-EOF &&
> + fatal: could not find pack '"'"'$(git -C pack-object-stdin rev-parse two)'"'"'
> + EOF
On the other hand, crafting this err.expect with one of the object's
full OID still sits funny with me. I appreciate you checking that this
is the correct object to test with in SHA-1 and SHA-256 mode, but isn't
the point that we shouldn't be relying on which object comes out?
I think that dropping this down to just something like:
grep 'could not find' err.actual
would be an improvement since it avoids the finicky shell quoting,
hardens this test in the event of a future change in hashing algorithm,
and brings the test more in line with the spirit of the patch itself
(which is to report some of its input, not necessarily the first one
given).
Thanks,
Taylor
