Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Can we refactor this test to stop doing that? E.g., would it work if we
>> used git-hash-object(1) to check that SHA1DC does its thing? Then we
>> could get rid of the helper altogether, as far as I understand.
>
> It could perhaps work if we used git-hash-object(1) instead of
> `test-tool sha1` in t0013-sha1dc to check that SHA1DC does its thing,
> but we could do that in a separate patch or patch series.
Yeah, I think such a plan to make preliminary refactoring as a
separate series, and then have another series to get rid of
"test-tool sha1" (and "test-tool sha256" as well?) on top of it
would work well.
>> > + if (!check(!!data)) {
>>
>> Is this double negation needed? Can't we just `if (!check(data))`?
>
> As far as I remember it is needed as check() is expecting an 'int'
> while 'data' is a 'void *'.
It might be easier to read by being more explicit, "data != NULL",
if that is the case? check() is like assert(), i.e., "we expect
data is not NULL", and if (!check("expected condition")) { guards an
error handling block for the case in which the expectation is not
met, right?
