Re: [PATCH 09/10] t-reftable-block: add tests for obj blocks

>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:33:17PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:
> > In the current testing setup, block operations are left unexercised
> > for obj blocks. Add a test that exercises these operations for obj
> > blocks.
>
> Same remarks here as for the preceding commit.
>
> > @@ -186,9 +186,88 @@ static void t_log_block_read_write(void)
> >               reftable_record_release(&recs[i]);
> >  }
> >
> > +static void t_obj_block_read_write(void)
> > +{
> > +     const int header_off = 21;
> > +     struct reftable_record recs[30];
> > +     const size_t N = ARRAY_SIZE(recs);
> > +     const size_t block_size = 1024;
> > +     struct reftable_block block = { 0 };
> > +     struct block_writer bw = {
> > +             .last_key = STRBUF_INIT,
> > +     };
> > +     struct reftable_record rec = {
> > +             .type = BLOCK_TYPE_OBJ,
> > +     };
> > +     size_t i = 0;
> > +     int n;
> > +     struct block_reader br = { 0 };
> > +     struct block_iter it = BLOCK_ITER_INIT;
> > +     struct strbuf want = STRBUF_INIT;
> > +
> > +     REFTABLE_CALLOC_ARRAY(block.data, block_size);
> > +     block.len = block_size;
> > +     block.source = malloc_block_source();
> > +     block_writer_init(&bw, BLOCK_TYPE_OBJ, block.data, block_size,
> > +                       header_off, hash_size(GIT_SHA1_FORMAT_ID));
> > +
> > +     for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
> > +             uint8_t *bytes = reftable_malloc(sizeof(uint8_t[5]));
> > +             memcpy(bytes, (uint8_t[]){i, i+1, i+2, i+3, i+5}, sizeof(uint8_t[5]));
>
> From the top of my head I'm not sure whether we use inline-array
> declarations like this anywhere. I'd rather just make it a separate
> variable, which also allows us to get rid of the magic 5 via
> `ARRAY_SIZE()`.