Re: [PATCH 5/6] reftable/reader: make table iterator reseekable

> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 07:11:54AM -0500, karthik nayak wrote:
>> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
>> > diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-reader.c b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-reader.c
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 00000000000..7a46580b6f1
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-reader.c
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
>> > +#include "test-lib.h"
>> > +#include "lib-reftable.h"
>> > +#include "reftable/blocksource.h"
>> > +#include "reftable/reader.h"
>> > +
>> > +static int t_reader_seek_once(void)
>> > +{
>> > +	struct reftable_ref_record records[] = {
>> > +		{
>> > +			.refname = (char *) "refs/heads/main",
>> > +			.value_type = REFTABLE_REF_VAL1,
>> > +			.value.val1 = { 42 },
>> > +		},
>> > +	};
>> > +	struct reftable_block_source source = { 0 };
>> > +	struct reftable_ref_record ref = { 0 };
>> > +	struct reftable_iterator it = { 0 };
>> > +	struct reftable_reader *reader;
>> > +	struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>> > +	int ret;
>> > +
>> > +	t_reftable_write_to_buf(&buf, records, ARRAY_SIZE(records), NULL, 0, NULL);
>> > +	block_source_from_strbuf(&source, &buf);
>> > +
>> > +	ret = reftable_reader_new(&reader, &source, "name");
>> > +	check_int(ret, ==, 0);
>> > +
>> > +	reftable_reader_init_ref_iterator(reader, &it);
>> > +	ret = reftable_iterator_seek_ref(&it, "");
>> > +	check_int(ret, ==, 0);
>> > +	ret = reftable_iterator_next_ref(&it, &ref);
>> > +	check_int(ret, ==, 0);
>> > +
>> > +	ret = reftable_ref_record_equal(&ref, &records[0], 20);
>>
>> s/20/GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Also here and elsewhere, shouldn't we just do
>> `check(reftable_ref_record_equal(...))` or even
>> `!check(reftable_iterator_seek_ref(...))` ?
>
> I guess you mean `check(!reftable_iteraror_seek_ref())`, right?
>

> In the case where we just expect a zero error code I can certainly adapt
> the code to use `check(...)`. But the other cases shouldn't use
> `check(!...)` because it is important that the returnd error code is
> positive.
>