On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 07:16:00AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 01:07:23AM +0200, Rubén Justo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 05:03:39PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:02:24AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > > So I dunno. If we think people are paying attention to CI on their
> > > topics, and we think that we are close enough to leak-free that (1b)
> > > won't come up a lot, it might make sense. I'm not quite sure we're there
> > > yet on the latter, but it's mostly gut feeling (and I know things have
> > > gotten a bit better recently, too).
> >
> > I don't know either. Maybe it seems a bit early still considering the
> > numbers we have:
> >
> > $ git grep -l PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true t/t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.sh | wc -l
> > 678
> > $ git grep -L PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true t/t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.sh | wc -l
> > 329
>
> These numbers aren't quite right -- you have to filter out most of the
> tests that include "lib-git-svn.sh", which reverses the schema and makes
> leak checks opt-out (?!).
You are right.
> That brings me to the following hacky numbers:
>
> $ grep -l TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.sh | grep -v svn | wc -l
> 678
> $ grep -L TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.sh | grep -v svn | wc -l
> 261
Out of curiosity, I ran this:
$ echo $((329 - $(git grep -l lib-git-svn.sh t/t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.sh | wc -l)))
260
which points to t9150-svk-mergetickets.sh.
