On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 08:12:58PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 14:11, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 07:43:40PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:
> > > diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-stack.c b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-stack.c
> > > index 14909b127e..0c15e654e8 100644
> > > --- a/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-stack.c
> > > +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-stack.c
> > > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void t_reftable_stack_add_one(void)
> > >
> > > err = reftable_stack_read_ref(st, ref.refname, &dest);
> > > check(!err);
> > > - check_str("master", dest.value.symref);
> > > + check(reftable_ref_record_equal(&ref, &dest, GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ));
> > > check_int(st->readers_len, >, 0);
> >
> > I think the change itself is sensible as long as we have tests that
> > verify that `reftable_ref_record_equal()` itself behaves as expected. I
> > don't think we have such tests anywhere though, uncovering a test gap.
>
> We _do_ test reftable_record_equal (which is a wrapper for
> reftable_ref_record_equal in the case of ref records) in the
> recently ported t-reftable-record test. Here is the test exercising
> this function in unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c:
Ah, great, never mind then! I didn't see this test because we are
using `reftable_ref_record_equal()` here, whereas the test uses
`reftable_record_equal()`. But the latter uses the former for ref
records, so that's fine.
Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
