On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:56:43AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: [snip] > > diff --git a/t/t0602-reffiles-fsck.sh b/t/t0602-reffiles-fsck.sh > > index 42c8d4ca1e..da321f16c6 100755 > > --- a/t/t0602-reffiles-fsck.sh > > +++ b/t/t0602-reffiles-fsck.sh > > @@ -639,4 +639,29 @@ test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'the filetype of packed-refs should be checked' ' > > ) > > ' > > > > +test_expect_success 'packed-refs header should be checked' ' > > + test_when_finished "rm -rf repo" && > > + git init repo && > > + ( > > + cd repo && > > + test_commit default && > > + > > + git refs verify 2>err && > > + test_must_be_empty err && > > + > > + for bad_header in "# pack-refs wit: peeled fully-peeled sorted " \ > > + "# pack-refs with traits: peeled fully-peeled sorted " \ > > + "# pack-refs with a: peeled fully-peeled" > > Instead of verifying thrice that we complain about bad header prefixes, > should we maybe replace two of these with instances where we check a > packed-refs file _without_ a header and one with capabilities that we > don't understand? > I think we could add some tests to verify that we won't complain about above two cases where packed-refs file without a header and one with capabilities that we don't understand. > Patrick
