Re: [PATCH v3] Test fsck a bit harder

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Feb 20, 2009, 20:29 UTC
Message-ID: <499F12BF.4080405@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <effac809336c1e05613eed315483ec32f3a4c75b.1235158438.git.trast@student.ethz.ch>

Thomas Rast schrieb:

Show 5 quoted lines

> +test_expect_success 'object with bad sha1' '
> +	sha=$(echo blob | git hash-object -w --stdin) &&
> +	echo $sha &&
> +	old=$(echo $sha | sed "s+^..+&/+") &&
> +	new=$(dirname $old)/ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff &&

	new=${old%/*}/ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff &&

> +	sha="$(dirname $new)$(basename $new)"

	sha=${new%/*}${new##*/} &&

note the '&&'!

Show 6 quoted lines

> +	mv .git/objects/$old .git/objects/$new &&
> +	git update-index --add --cacheinfo 100644 $sha foo &&
> +	tree=$(git write-tree) &&
> +	cmt=$(echo bogus | git commit-tree $tree) &&
> +	git update-ref refs/heads/bogus $cmt &&
> +	(git fsck 2>out; true) &&

Any particular reason not to use

	test_must_fail git fsck 2>out &&

here?

Show 5 quoted lines

> +	grep "$sha.*corrupt" out &&
> +	rm -f .git/objects/$new &&
> +	git update-ref -d refs/heads/bogus &&
> +	git read-tree -u --reset HEAD
> +'

Shouldn't the cleanup be outside the test_expect_success so that later tests work even if this one fails? (Ditto for subsequent tests.)

> +test_expect_success 'tag pointing to nonexistent' '
> +	tag=$(git hash-object -t tag -w --stdin < invalid-tag) &&
> +	echo $tag > .git/refs/tags/invalid &&
> +	git fsck 2>&1 | tee out &&

	test_must_fail git fsck > out 2>&1 &&

> +	grep "missing commit ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff" out &&

...

> +test_expect_success 'tag pointing to something else than its type' '
> +	tag=$(git hash-object -t tag -w --stdin < wrong-tag) &&
> +	echo $tag > .git/refs/tags/wrong &&
> +	git fsck 2>&1 | tee out &&

	test_must_fail git fsck > out 2>&1 &&

> +	grep "Object.*is a blob, not a commit" out &&

...

-- Hannes