From: karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 04:40:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] sha1_file: support reading from a loose object of unknown type
Message-ID: <5541B22B.6040403@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq383i6849.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>


On 04/30/2015 01:05 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 04/29/2015 08:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> Update sha1_loose_object_info() to optionally allow it to read
> >>> from a loose object file of unknown/bogus type; as the function
> >>> usually returns the type of the object it read in the form of enum
> >>> for known types, add an optional "typename" field to receive the
> >>> name of the type in textual form and a flag to indicate the reading
> >>> of a loose object file of unknown/bogus type.
> >>>
> >>> Add parse_sha1_header_extended() which acts as a wrapper around
> >>> parse_sha1_header() allowing more information to be obtained.
> >>
> >> Thanks.  This mostly looks good modulo a nit.
> >
> > Sorry didn't get what you meant by "modulo a nit.".
>
> "nit" as in "Nit-pick"; a small imperfection that may need to be
> corrected (such as the "what if we saw failure earlier and 'status'
> already had a value?" issue).
Thanks for clearing that out.
>
> >> It is a good trade-off between complexity and efficiency.  The
> >> complexity is isolated as the function is file-scope-static and it
> >> is perfectly fine to force the callers to be extra careful.
> >>
> >> But this suggests that the patch to add tests should try at least
> >> two, preferably three, kinds of test input.  A bogus type that needs
> >> a header longer than the caller's fixed buffer, a bogus type whose
> >> header would fit within the fixed buffer, and optionally a correct
> >> type whose header should always fit within the fixed buffer.
> >
> > Yes it is a tradeoff, and it is complex as in the user has to check
> > the strbuf provided to see if its been used. But this like you said I
> > guess its a good tradeoff.
> > About the three tests, My patch checks "a bogus type whose header
> > would fit within the fixed buffer" and "correct type whose header
> > should always fit within the fixed buffer" but will write a test to
> > check "A bogus type that needs a header longer than the caller's fixed
> > buffer"
>
> Yup. Please do so; that would make the test coverage more complete.
>
Yup will do :)