On 29-ene-2024 14:15:15, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Rubén Justo <rjusto@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > This test is leak-free since it was added in e137fe3b29 (unit tests: add > > TAP unit test framework, 2023-11-09) > > > > Let's mark it as leak-free to make sure it stays that way (and to reduce > > noise when looking for other leak-free scripts after we fix some leaks). > > For other tests in this series, that rationale is a very sensible > thing, but does it apply to this one? > > The point of the t-basic tests is to ensure the lightweight unit > test framework that requires nothing from Git behaves (and keeps > behaving) sensibly. The point of running t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] > tests under leak sanitizer is to exercise production Git code to > catch leaks in Git code. > > So it is not quite clear if we even want to run this t0080 under > leak sanitizer to begin with. t0080 is a relatively tiny test, but > do we even want to spend leak sanitizer cycles on it? I dunno. IIUC, that would imply building test-tool with a different set of flags than Git, new artifacts ... or running test-tool with some LSAN_OPTIONS options, to disable it ... or both ... or ... And that is assuming that with test-tool we won't catch a leak in Git that we're not seeing in the other tests ... Maybe this is tangential to this series but, while a decision is being made, annotating the test makes GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check pass, which is the objective in this series. > > > Signed-off-by: Rubén Justo <rjusto@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh b/t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh > > index 961b54b06c..6657c114a3 100755 > > --- a/t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh > > +++ b/t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ > > > > test_description='Test the output of the unit test framework' > > > > +TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true > > . ./test-lib.sh > > > > test_expect_success 'TAP output from unit tests' '
