On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:27:11PM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 7:35 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > In t4207 we set up a set of replace objects via git-replace(1). Because > > these references should not be impacting subsequent tests we also set up > > some cleanup logic that deletes the replacement references via a call to > > `rm -rf`. This reaches into the internal implementation details of the > > reference backend and will thus break when we grow an alternative refdb > > implementation. > > > > Refactor the tests to delete the replacement refs via Git commands so > > that we become independent of the actual refdb that's in use. As we > > don't have a nice way to delete all replacements or all references in a > > certain namespace, we opt for a combination of git-for-each-ref(1) and > > git-update-ref(1)'s `--stdin` mode. > > There is a test helper that can directly access the ref database, > t/helper/test-ref-store.c. > > If you use that manipulate refs for testing purposes, you make the > test independent of behavior git-for-each-ref/git-update-ref, which is > what you want for testing replace-objects? Is there any specific reason why we shouldn't be using git-for-each-ref(1) or git-update-ref(1) here? Neither of those commands are part of the system under test, as we rather care about git-log(1) here. So as those commands are already being verified in other tests I think it should be fine to assume that they work as intended here. Happy to hear differing viewpoints though. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
