On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 06:35:49AM +0100, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-stack.c b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-stack.c
> index aeec195b2b1014445d71c5db39a9795017fd8ff2..c3f0059c346edbe1ad543c9832959c6fc0aa9180 100644
> --- a/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-stack.c
> +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-stack.c
> @@ -1369,11 +1371,57 @@ static void t_reftable_stack_reload_with_missing_table(void)
> clear_dir(dir);
> }
>
> +static int write_limits_after_ref(struct reftable_writer *wr, void *arg)
> +{
> + struct reftable_ref_record *ref = arg;
> + check(!reftable_writer_set_limits(wr, ref->update_index, ref->update_index));
> + check(!reftable_writer_add_ref(wr, ref));
> + return reftable_writer_set_limits(wr, ref->update_index, ref->update_index);
> +}
Nice.
> +static void t_reftable_invalid_limit_updates(void)
> +{
> + struct reftable_ref_record ref = {
> + .refname = (char *) "HEAD",
> + .update_index = 1,
> + .value_type = REFTABLE_REF_SYMREF,
> + .value.symref = (char *) "master",
> + };
> + struct reftable_write_options opts = {
> + .default_permissions = 0660,
> + };
Nit: it's unnecessary to pass write options. Other than that the test
looks good to me, and this nit isn't worth a reroll.
Thanks for working on this!
Patrick
