Re: [PATCH v2 20/21] t4202: mark bogus head hash test with REFFILES

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: May 20, 2021, 15:43 UTC
Message-ID: <87eee1pfzk.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a33cdfda74ff55fbc8242d3486e1fd5a26ad4c00.1619519903.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 27 2021, Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>
>
> In reftable, hashes are correctly formed by design
>
> Signed-off-by: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>
> ---
>  t/t4202-log.sh | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t4202-log.sh b/t/t4202-log.sh
> index a8c5a00d012d..3f969b01508c 100755
> --- a/t/t4202-log.sh
> +++ b/t/t4202-log.sh
> @@ -1834,7 +1834,7 @@ test_expect_success 'log --graph --no-walk is forbidden' '
>  	test_must_fail git log --graph --no-walk
>  '
>  
> -test_expect_success 'log diagnoses bogus HEAD hash' '
> +test_expect_success REFFILES 'log diagnoses bogus HEAD hash' '
>  	git init empty &&
>  	test_must_fail git -C empty log 2>stderr &&
>  	test_i18ngrep does.not.have.any.commits stderr &&

Okey, they're correctly formed by design, but the first test here is just checking what happens when we do a "git log" on a repo with no commits. What does that have to do with reflog's guarantees that we have a valid-looking SHA in some entry in its database?

Surely we also want to test for the same thing, the ref backend doesn't change that we have no commits or refs yet, no?