From: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:39:27 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] read-cache: force_verify_index_checksum
Message-ID: <8bde0b54-c0f6-364d-1f08-ce5207eb6c86@jeffhostetler.com>
In-Reply-To: <870a8a36-fc6c-6b07-d09e-eec8a9f46a5c@kdbg.org>



On 4/24/2017 1:26 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 14.04.2017 um 22:32 schrieb git@jeffhostetler.com:
>> diff --git a/t/t1450-fsck.sh b/t/t1450-fsck.sh
>> index 33a51c9..677e15a 100755
>> --- a/t/t1450-fsck.sh
>> +++ b/t/t1450-fsck.sh
>> @@ -689,4 +689,17 @@ test_expect_success 'bogus head does not 
>> fallback to all heads' '
>>      ! grep $blob out
>>  '
>>
>> +test_expect_success 'detect corrupt index file in fsck' '
>> +    cp .git/index .git/index.backup &&
>> +    test_when_finished "mv .git/index.backup .git/index" &&
>> +    echo zzzzzzzz >zzzzzzzz &&
>> +    git add zzzzzzzz &&
>> +    sed -e "s/zzzzzzzz/yyyyyyyy/" .git/index >.git/index.yyy &&
>
> sed on a binary file? Sooner or later we are going to run into 
> portability issues.

In v5 of this patch series I used "perl" and it was suggested that I use 
"sed" instead.
It doesn't matter to me which we use.  My testing showed that it was 
safe, but that
was only Linux.

Does the mailing list have a preference for this ?

>
>
>> +    mv .git/index.yyy .git/index &&
>> +    # Confirm that fsck detects invalid checksum
>> +    test_must_fail git fsck --cache &&
>
> You should ensure that this failure is really because of an invalid 
> checksum. The failure could also be due to an extra LF at the end that 
> sed inserted, no?

I suppose we could, but I'm tempted to wait on that for now.

Jeff