On Tue, Sep 21 2021, Neeraj Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:58 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 20 2021, Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>
>> > From: Neeraj Singh <neerajsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Add test cases to exercise batch mode for 'git add'
>> > and 'git stash'. These tests ensure that the added
>> > data winds up in the object database.
>> >
>> > I verified the tests by introducing an incorrect rename
>> > in do_sync_and_rename.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Singh <neerajsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > t/lib-unique-files.sh | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > t/t3700-add.sh | 11 +++++++++++
>> > t/t3903-stash.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> > 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
>> > create mode 100644 t/lib-unique-files.sh
>> >
>> > diff --git a/t/lib-unique-files.sh b/t/lib-unique-files.sh
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 00000000000..a8a25eba61d
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/t/lib-unique-files.sh
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
>> > +# Helper to create files with unique contents
>> > +
>> > +test_create_unique_files_base__=$(date -u)
>> > +test_create_unique_files_counter__=0
>> > +
>> > +# Create multiple files with unique contents. Takes the number of
>> > +# directories, the number of files in each directory, and the base
>> > +# directory.
>> > +#
>> > +# test_create_unique_files 2 3 . -- Creates 2 directories with 3 files
>> > +# each in the specified directory, all
>> > +# with unique contents.
>> > +
>> > +test_create_unique_files() {
>> > + test "$#" -ne 3 && BUG "3 param"
>> > +
>> > + local dirs=$1
>> > + local files=$2
>> > + local basedir=$3
>> > +
>> > + rm -rf $basedir >/dev/null
>>
>> Why the >/dev/null? It's not a "-rfv", and any errors would go to
>> stderr.
>
> Will fix. Clearly I don't know UNIX very well.
>
>>
>> > + mkdir -p "$dir" > /dev/null
>>
>> Ditto.
>
> Will fix.
>
>>
>> > + for j in $(test_seq $files)
>> > + do
>> > + test_create_unique_files_counter__=$((test_create_unique_files_counter__ + 1))
>> > + echo "$test_create_unique_files_base__.$test_create_unique_files_counter__" >"$dir/file$j.txt"
>>
>> Would be much more readable if we these variables were shorter.
>>
>> But actually, why are we trying to create files as a function of "date
>> -u" at all? This is all in the trash directory, which is rm -rf'd beween
>> runs, why aren't names created with test_seq or whatever OK? I.e. just
>> 1.txt, 2.txt....
>>
>
> The uniqueness is in the contents of the file. I wanted to make sure that
> we are really creating new objects and not reusing old ones. Is the scope
> of the "trash repo" small enough that I can be guaranteed that a new one
> is created before my test since the last time I tried adding something to
> the ODB?
>
>> > +test_expect_success 'stash with core.fsyncobjectfiles=batch' "
>> > + test_create_unique_files 2 4 fsync-files &&
>> > + git -c core.fsyncobjectfiles=batch stash push -u -- ./fsync-files/ &&
>> > + rm -f fsynced_files &&
>> > +
>> > + # The files were untracked, so use the third parent,
>> > + # which contains the untracked files
>> > + git ls-tree -r stash^3 -- ./fsync-files/ > fsynced_files &&
>> > + test_line_count = 8 fsynced_files &&
>> > + cat fsynced_files | awk '{print \$3}' | xargs -n1 git cat-file -e
>> > +"
>> > +
>> > +
>> > test_expect_success 'stash -c stash.useBuiltin=false warning ' '
>> > expected="stash.useBuiltin support has been removed" &&
>>
>> We really prefer our tests to create the same data each time if
>> possible, but as noted with the "date -u" comment above you're
>> explicitly bypassing that, but I still can't see why...
>
> I'm trying to make sure we get new object contents. Is there a better
> way to achieve what I want without the risk of finding that the contents
> are already in the database from a previous test run?
You can just do something like:
test_expect_success 'setup data' '
test_commit A &&
test_commit B
'
Which will create files A.t, B.t etc, or create them via:
obj=$(echo foo | git hash-object -w --stdin)
etc.
I.e. the uniqueness you're doing here seems to assume that tests are
re-using the same object store across runs, but we create a new trash
directory for each one, if you run the test with "-d" you can see it
being left behind for inspection. This is already ensured for the test.
The only potential caveat I can imagine is that some filesystem like say
btrfs-like that does some COW or object de-duplication would behave
differently, but other than that...
