On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 07:23:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Did you mean REFTABLE_HASH_SIZE_SHA1 instead? > > Ah, that transition hasn't happened yet on 'master'. I'll carry the > semantic conflict resoluion in merge-fix hierarchy then. > > > diff --git i/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-merged.c w/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-merged.c > > index 620803e0ed..a12bd0e1a3 100644 > > --- i/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-merged.c > > +++ w/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-merged.c > > @@ -326,14 +326,14 @@ static void t_merged_seek_multiple_times_without_draining(void) > > check(!err); > > err = reftable_iterator_next_ref(&it, &rec); > > check(!err); > > - err = reftable_ref_record_equal(&rec, &r2[0], GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ); > > + err = reftable_ref_record_equal(&rec, &r2[0], REFTABLE_HASH_SIZE_SHA1); > > check(err == 1); > > > > err = reftable_iterator_seek_ref(&it, "a"); > > check(!err); > > err = reftable_iterator_next_ref(&it, &rec); > > check(!err); > > - err = reftable_ref_record_equal(&rec, &r1[0], GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ); > > + err = reftable_ref_record_equal(&rec, &r1[0], REFTABLE_HASH_SIZE_SHA1); > > check(err == 1); > > > > for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(bufs); i++) This looks good to me. I guess I may end up resending this topic with a new merge base in case the other failures are caused by that semantic merge conflict, too. Thanks! Patrick
