Re: [PATCH 00/10] Hash-independent tests (part 1)
- From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
- Date
- Mar 26, 2018, 22:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20180326032411.GF74743@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cR==SNfGdhwqPdvW75fUxXg-VSQ5Tz_OR7Sy_c0L94axQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:10:21PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> What's the plan for oddball cases such as 66ae9a57b8 (t3404: rebase > -i: demonstrate short SHA-1 collision, 2013-08-23) which depend > implicitly upon SHA-1 without actually hardcoding any hashes? The test > added by 66ae9a57b8, for instance, won't start failing in the face of > NewHash, but it also won't be testing anything meaningful. > > Should such tests be dropped altogether? Should they be marked with a > 'SHA1' predicate or be annotated with a comment as being > SHA-1-specific? Something else?
My plan for these was to treat them the same way as for git rev-parse and git hash-object. Basically, for the moment, I had planned to ignore them, although I like the idea for a prerequisite to get the full testsuite passing in the interim.
Ultimately, we could use some sort of lookup table or a test helper to translate them so that we get functionally equivalent results. t1512 is another great example of this same kind of test.
-- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204