On Thu, Jan 20 2022, Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This simplifies unittests a little, and provides further coverage for
> reftable_record_copy().
>
> Signed-off-by: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> reftable/record.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> reftable/record.h | 5 +++-
> reftable/record_test.c | 23 +++--------------
> 3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/reftable/record.c b/reftable/record.c
> index f7c77c51539..2a9e41a992e 100644
> --- a/reftable/record.c
> +++ b/reftable/record.c
> @@ -430,6 +430,15 @@ static int reftable_ref_record_is_deletion_void(const void *p)
> (const struct reftable_ref_record *)p);
> }
>
> +
stray extra newline being added here.
> +static int reftable_ref_record_equal_void(const void *a,
> + const void *b, int hash_size)
> +{
> + struct reftable_ref_record *ra = (struct reftable_ref_record *) a;
> + struct reftable_ref_record *rb = (struct reftable_ref_record *) b;
> + return reftable_ref_record_equal(ra, rb, hash_size);
> +}
> +
> static struct reftable_record_vtable reftable_ref_record_vtable = {
> .key = &reftable_ref_record_key,
> .type = BLOCK_TYPE_REF,
> @@ -439,6 +448,7 @@ static struct reftable_record_vtable reftable_ref_record_vtable = {
> .decode = &reftable_ref_record_decode,
> .release = &reftable_ref_record_release_void,
> .is_deletion = &reftable_ref_record_is_deletion_void,
> + .equal = &reftable_ref_record_equal_void,
> };
>
> static void reftable_obj_record_key(const void *r, struct strbuf *dest)
> @@ -572,6 +582,25 @@ static int not_a_deletion(const void *p)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int reftable_obj_record_equal_void(const void *a, const void *b, int hash_size)
> +{
> + struct reftable_obj_record *ra = (struct reftable_obj_record *) a;
> + struct reftable_obj_record *rb = (struct reftable_obj_record *) b;
> +
> + if (ra->hash_prefix_len != rb->hash_prefix_len
> + || ra->offset_len != rb->offset_len)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (ra->hash_prefix_len &&
> + memcmp(ra->hash_prefix, rb->hash_prefix, ra->hash_prefix_len))
> + return 0;
Similar to the memcpy() paranoia isn't this memcmp() paranoia?
I.e. memcmp() returns 0 on a n=0, so we can lose the
"ra->hash_prefix_len &&" here, no?
> + if (ra->offset_len &&
> + memcmp(ra->offsets, rb->offsets, ra->offset_len * sizeof(uint64_t)))
> + return 0;
...and here, since 0 * sizeof() will just get us zero.
