Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > We do fsck the resolve-undo extension, but I think fsck just doesn't > know anything about worktrees. That should be easy enough to fix. > Patches below. > ... > Thanks, it was nice to have a test case. I ended up writing a separate > test with a missing blob, just because that's simpler to do. It looks > like we don't test fsck_resolve_undo() or fsck_cache_tree() at all. That > might be a nice addition, but I punted for now to stay focused on the > worktree aspects. So we had a separate worktree with its index pointing at an object by its resolve-undo (or cache-tree) extension, but somehow lost that object to gc (I agree with your assessment that it should no longer happen since 2017). gc these days knows about looking at the index of all worktrees, finds the issue, and stops for safety. fsck that is run in the primary worktree may not have noticed but fsck run from that worktree would notice the issue. Sounds like a frustrating one. Thanks, both, for finding and fixing.
