Show 89 quoted lines
>
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 07:42:01PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:
> > > +static void t_table_print(void)
> > > +{
> > > + char name[100];
> > > + struct reftable_write_options opts = {
> > > + .block_size = 512,
> > > + .hash_id = GIT_SHA1_FORMAT_ID,
> > > + };
> > > + struct reftable_ref_record ref = { 0 };
> > > + struct reftable_log_record log = { 0 };
> > > + struct reftable_writer *w = NULL;
> > > + struct tempfile *tmp = NULL;
> > > + size_t i, N = 3;
> > > + int n, fd;
> > > +
> > > + xsnprintf(name, sizeof(name), "t-reftable-readwrite-%d-XXXXXX", __LINE__);
> >
> > Is it really required to include the line number in this file? This
> > feels unnecessarily defensive to me as `mks_tempfile_t()` should already
> > make sure that we get a unique filename. So if we drop that, we could
> > skip this call to `xsnprintf()`.
> >
> > > + tmp = mks_tempfile_t(name);
> > > + fd = get_tempfile_fd(tmp);
> > > + w = reftable_new_writer(&fd_write, &fd_flush, &fd, &opts);
> > > + reftable_writer_set_limits(w, 0, update_index);
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
> > > + xsnprintf(name, sizeof(name), "refs/heads/branch%02"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)i);
> > > + ref.refname = name;
> > > + ref.update_index = i;
> > > + ref.value_type = REFTABLE_REF_VAL1;
> > > + set_test_hash(ref.value.val1, i);
> > > +
> > > + n = reftable_writer_add_ref(w, &ref);
> > > + check_int(n, ==, 0);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
> > > + xsnprintf(name, sizeof(name), "refs/heads/branch%02"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)i);
> > > + log.refname = name;
> > > + log.update_index = i;
> > > + log.value_type = REFTABLE_LOG_UPDATE;
> > > + set_test_hash(log.value.update.new_hash, i);
> > > + log.value.update.name = (char *) "John Doe";
> > > + log.value.update.email = (char *) "johndoe@anon.org";
> > > + log.value.update.time = 0x6673e5b9;
> > > + log.value.update.message = (char *) "message";
> > > +
> > > + n = reftable_writer_add_log(w, &log);
> > > + check_int(n, ==, 0);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + n = reftable_writer_close(w);
> > > + check_int(n, ==, 0);
> > > +
> > > + test_msg("testing printing functionality:");
> >
> > Is it intentionally that this line still exists? If so, I think it
> > really only causes unnecessary noise and should rather be dropped.
> >
> > > + n = reftable_reader_print_file(tmp->filename.buf);
> > > + check_int(n, ==, 0);
> >
> > Wait, doesn't this print to stdout? I don't think it is a good idea to
> > exercise the function as-is. For one, it would pollute stdout with data
> > that we shouldn't care about. Second, it doesn't verify that the result
> > is actually what we expect.
> >
> > I can see two options:
> >
> > 1. Refactor these interfaces such that they take a file descriptor as
> > input that they are writing to. This would allow us to exercise
> > that the output is correct.
> >
> > 2. Rip out this function. I don't think this functionality should be
> > part of the library in the first place, and it really only exists
> > because of "reftable/dump.c".
> >
> > I think the latter is the better option. The functionality exists to
> > drive `cmd__dump_reftable()` in our reftable test helper. We should
> > likely make the whole implementation of this an internal implementation
> > detail and not expose it.
>
> For the record: I've got a bigger patch series in development that drops
> the generic reftable interfaces. As part of this, I'll also rip out the
> functionality provided by "reftabel/dump.c".