On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 07:42:01PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:
> +static void t_table_print(void)
> +{
> + char name[100];
> + struct reftable_write_options opts = {
> + .block_size = 512,
> + .hash_id = GIT_SHA1_FORMAT_ID,
> + };
> + struct reftable_ref_record ref = { 0 };
> + struct reftable_log_record log = { 0 };
> + struct reftable_writer *w = NULL;
> + struct tempfile *tmp = NULL;
> + size_t i, N = 3;
> + int n, fd;
> +
> + xsnprintf(name, sizeof(name), "t-reftable-readwrite-%d-XXXXXX", __LINE__);
Is it really required to include the line number in this file? This
feels unnecessarily defensive to me as `mks_tempfile_t()` should already
make sure that we get a unique filename. So if we drop that, we could
skip this call to `xsnprintf()`.
> + tmp = mks_tempfile_t(name);
> + fd = get_tempfile_fd(tmp);
> + w = reftable_new_writer(&fd_write, &fd_flush, &fd, &opts);
> + reftable_writer_set_limits(w, 0, update_index);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
> + xsnprintf(name, sizeof(name), "refs/heads/branch%02"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)i);
> + ref.refname = name;
> + ref.update_index = i;
> + ref.value_type = REFTABLE_REF_VAL1;
> + set_test_hash(ref.value.val1, i);
> +
> + n = reftable_writer_add_ref(w, &ref);
> + check_int(n, ==, 0);
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
> + xsnprintf(name, sizeof(name), "refs/heads/branch%02"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)i);
> + log.refname = name;
> + log.update_index = i;
> + log.value_type = REFTABLE_LOG_UPDATE;
> + set_test_hash(log.value.update.new_hash, i);
> + log.value.update.name = (char *) "John Doe";
> + log.value.update.email = (char *) "johndoe@xxxxxxxx";
> + log.value.update.time = 0x6673e5b9;
> + log.value.update.message = (char *) "message";
> +
> + n = reftable_writer_add_log(w, &log);
> + check_int(n, ==, 0);
> + }
> +
> + n = reftable_writer_close(w);
> + check_int(n, ==, 0);
> +
> + test_msg("testing printing functionality:");
Is it intentionally that this line still exists? If so, I think it
really only causes unnecessary noise and should rather be dropped.
> + n = reftable_reader_print_file(tmp->filename.buf);
> + check_int(n, ==, 0);
Wait, doesn't this print to stdout? I don't think it is a good idea to
exercise the function as-is. For one, it would pollute stdout with data
that we shouldn't care about. Second, it doesn't verify that the result
is actually what we expect.
I can see two options:
1. Refactor these interfaces such that they take a file descriptor as
input that they are writing to. This would allow us to exercise
that the output is correct.
2. Rip out this function. I don't think this functionality should be
part of the library in the first place, and it really only exists
because of "reftable/dump.c".
I think the latter is the better option. The functionality exists to
drive `cmd__dump_reftable()` in our reftable test helper. We should
likely make the whole implementation of this an internal implementation
detail and not expose it.
Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
