Re: Git Test Coverage Report (v2.20.0-rc0)

> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:40:53AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>
>
> Since depth is never incremented, we are not covering this block. Is it
> possible to test?
> This should be covered by the fix in:
>
>    https://public-inbox.org/git/20181120095053.GC22742@sigill.intra.peff.net/
>
> because now entries at the top-level are depth "1". The "depth++" line
> is still never executed in our test suite. I'm not sure how much that
> matters.

>>> delta-islands.c
>>> c8d521faf7  53) memcpy(b, old, size);
>> This memcpy happens when the 'old' island_bitmap is passed to
>> island_bitmap_new(), but...
>>
>>> c8d521faf7 187) b->refcount--;
>>> c8d521faf7 188) b = kh_value(island_marks, pos) = island_bitmap_new(b);
>> This block has the only non-NULL caller to island_bitmap_new().
> This is another case where it triggers a lot for a reasonably-sized
> repo, but it's hard to construct a small case. This code implements a
> copy-on-write of the bitmap, which means the same objects have to be
> accessible from two different paths through the reachability graph, each
> with different island marks. And then a test would I guess make sure
> that the correct subsets of objects never become deltas, which gets
> complicated.
>
> And I think that's a pattern with the delta-island code. What we really
> care about most is that if we throw a real fork-network repository at
> it, it produces faster clones with fewer un-reusable deltas. So I think
> a much more interesting approach here would be perf tests. But:
>
>    - we'd want to count those as coverage, and that likely makes your
>      coverage tests prohibitively expensive
>
>    - it requires a specialized repo to demonstrate, which most people
>      aren't going to have handy

>>> c8d521faf7 212) obj = ((struct tag *)obj)->tagged;
>>> c8d521faf7 213) if (obj) {
>>> c8d521faf7 214) parse_object(the_repository, &obj->oid);
>>> c8d521faf7 215) marks = create_or_get_island_marks(obj);
>>> c8d521faf7 216) island_bitmap_set(marks, island_counter);
>> It appears that this block would happen if we placed a tag in the delta
>> island.
> Yep. Again, exercised by real repositories.
>
> I'm not sure how far we want to go in the blind pursuit of coverage.
> Certainly we could add a tag to the repo in t5320, and this code would
> get executed. But verifying that it's doing the right thing is much
> harder (and is more easily done with a perf test).

>
>>> c8d521faf7 397) strbuf_addch(&island_name, '-');
>> This block is inside the following patch:
>> [...]
> Yeah, this triggers if your regex has more than one capture group (and
> likewise, we almost certainly don't run the "you have too many groups"
> warning).

>
>>> c8d521faf7 433) continue;
>>> c8d521faf7 436) list[dst] = list[src];
>> These blocks are inside the following nested loop in deduplicate_islands():
>>
>> +       for (ref = 0; ref + 1 < island_count; ref++) {
>> +               for (src = ref + 1, dst = src; src < island_count; src++) {
>> +                       if (list[ref]->hash == list[src]->hash)
>> +                               continue;
>> +
>> +                       if (src != dst)
>> +                               list[dst] = list[src];
>> +
>> +                       dst++;
>> +               }
>> +               island_count = dst;
>> +       }
>>
>> This means that our "deduplication" logic is never actually doing anything
>> meaningful.
> Sorry, I don't even remember what this code is trying to do. The island
> code is 5+ years old, and just recently ported to upstream Git by
> Christian. And that's perhaps part of my laziness in the above tests; it
> would be a significant effort to re-figure out all these corner cases.
> It's a big part of why I hadn't been sending the patches upstream
> myself.