Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] alternate hash test

From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: Jan 28, 2018, 19:16 UTC
Message-ID: <20180128191605.GI431130@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACBZZX4TRuPV8j9XV=8gAMirQNTpEJBO8bmE9KBnnmoJ7b_m1g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 07:58:10PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:06 PM, brian m. carlson
> <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> If the goal is to smoke out hardcoded SHA1s in tests, isn't it easier
> to instrument SHA-1 (e.g. our blk_sha1 copy, or our wrappers) to
> pretend that whenever we ask for the hash for STRING to pretend we
> asked for SOME_PREFIX + STRING?
> 
> Such an approach would have the advantage of being more portable
> (easier to run these mock test), and also that if we ever move to
> NewHash we could still test for this, we'd just always set the prefix
> to compilation time(), and could thus guarantee that the hashes would
> change every time git was built.

That's certainly a possibility. We could simply call the update function from the init function and prepend a NUL byte or something like that, which would definitely produce different results.

-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204