Re: [PATCH 06/28] t0000: annotate with SHA1 prerequisite
- From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
- Date
- May 7, 2018, 23:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20180507234058.GJ953644@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAN0heSqu9gwsrgV0rnPe8=vANhBA+Z7fZ3UNTeG9S1QiJBsksw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 12:24:13PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> This could be more centralized at the top of the file, more likely to be > noticed during a `make test` and easier to adapt in the future. Maybe > something like this at the top of the file: > > if hash for storage is SHA-1 then > knowntree=7bb943559a305bdd6bdee2cef6e5df2413c3d30a > path0=f87290f8eb2cbbea7857214459a0739927eab154 > .... > else > skip_all='unknown hash, but you really need to expand this test' > # or even error out! > fi
As I mentioned in an earlier email, I plan to set an environment variable for the algorithms in use and then do something like:
test "$tree" = "$(test-tool hash-helper --output known-tree)"
where "known-tree" is some key we can use to look up the SHA-1 or NewHash value, and we've specified we want the output format (as opposed to input format or on-disk format).
Show 6 quoted lines
> When we add NewHash, we get to add an "else if". Otherwise, we'd be > plugging in NewHash without testing some very basic stuff. > > Ok, so `skip_all` is quite hard, but skipping certain basic tests also > feels really shaky. Adding a new hash algo without adapting this test > should be a no-go, IMHO.
I agree that this test needs to be updated for NewHash, but since we haven't decided what that's going to be, it makes sense during development to still test the rest of the code if possible so that we know what does and doesn't work.
This is a first step in making it obvious what doesn't work, and when we know what the data is supposed to be, we can adjust it by fixing the tests so that it works in all cases.
-- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204