On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 03:11:11PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > I wonder how you found it. Diagnosing a repository that did not > > seem healthy? What I am getting at is if we want a new option to > > make a plumbing command, other than the test-tool, that calls this > > function, as the latter is usually not deployed in the field. > > I would not be surprised if this was discovered via Coverity, or by > manual inspection. Peff and I have been merging a slew of releases from > your tree into GitHub's fork and so have been reading code in the more > recently changed areas. It was Coverity in this case. I haven't actually used the name-hash dumper for any real-world debugging. > On the test-tool vs. plumbing thing: I think there are some compelling > reasons in either direction. There's no *good* home for these in our > current set of plumbing tools. E.g., the closest example we have is `git > rev-list --test-bitmap <rev>`, which is kind of ugly. When we needed > these new inspection tools for some of the newer bitmap-related tests, > adding them via the test-helper suite was a conscious choice to not > build on the ugliness of `--test-bitmap`. > > But on occasion these test-tool things are useful to have "in the > field", as you say. It's rare enough that I usually just clone a copy of > our fork as needed and build it when I do find myself reaching for > test-helpers. Yeah, I could see arguments both ways on such tools (not just bitmaps, but other "debug this binary format" tools like read-midx and read-graph). I'm content to leave it as-is until I come across more in-the-field cases where those tools would be useful. Half the time I end up in a debugger anyway. ;) -Peff
