Am 21.12.23 um 22:30 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 01:19:53PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
>
>> I think we can do it even in shell, especially if...
>> [...]
>
> Yeah, your conversion looks accurate. I do wonder if it is worth golfing
> further, though. If it were a process invocation per object, I'd
> definitely say the efficiency gain is worth it. But dropping one process
> from the whole test isn't that exciting either way.
Fair enough.
>
>> (sort -r), then we don't need to carry the oid forward:
>>
>> sort -nr <idx.raw >idx.sorted &&
>> packsz=$(test_file_size "${idx%.idx}.pack") &&
>> end=$((packsz - rawsz)) &&
>> awk -v end="$end" "
>> { print \$2, end - \$1; end = \$1 }
>> " idx.sorted ||
>>
>> And at that point it should be easy to use a shell loop instead of awk:
>>
>> while read start oid rest
>> do
>> size=$((end - start)) &&
>> end=$start &&
>> echo "$oid $size" ||
>> return 1
>> done <idx.sorted
>
> The one thing I do like is that we don't have to escape anything inside
> an awk program that is forced to use double-quotes. ;)
For me it's processing the data in the "correct" order (descending, i.e.
starting at the end, which we have to calculate first anyway based on the
size).
>> Should we deduplicate here, like cat-file does (i.e. use "sort -u")?
>> Having the same object in multiple places for whatever reason would not
>> be a cause for reporting an error in this test, I would think.
>
> No, for the reasons I said in the commit message: if an object exists in
> multiple places the test is already potentially invalid, as Git does not
> promise which version it will use. So it might work racily, or it might
> work for now but be fragile. By not de-duplicating, we make sure the
> test's assumption holds.
Oh, skipped that paragraph. Still I don't see how a duplicate object
would necessarily invalidate t1006. The comment for the test "cat-file
--batch-all-objects shows all objects" a few lines above indicates that
it's picky about the provenance of objects, but it uses a separate
repository. I can't infer the same requirement for the root repo, but
we already established that I can't read.
Anyway, if someone finds a use for git repack without -d or
git unpack-objects or whatever else causes duplicates in the root
repository of t1006 then they can try to reverse your ban with concrete
arguments.
René
