Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] packed-backend: add "packed-refs" header consistency check
- From
shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 12, 2025, 10:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Z6x0AtbmCY4XJsGj@ArchLinux>
- In-Reply-To
- <Z6xwW0N7GG4NhCzZ@pks.im>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:56:43AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
[snip]
Show 27 quoted lines
> > diff --git a/t/t0602-reffiles-fsck.sh b/t/t0602-reffiles-fsck.sh > > index 42c8d4ca1e..da321f16c6 100755 > > --- a/t/t0602-reffiles-fsck.sh > > +++ b/t/t0602-reffiles-fsck.sh > > @@ -639,4 +639,29 @@ test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'the filetype of packed-refs should be checked' ' > > ) > > ' > > > > +test_expect_success 'packed-refs header should be checked' ' > > + test_when_finished "rm -rf repo" && > > + git init repo && > > + ( > > + cd repo && > > + test_commit default && > > + > > + git refs verify 2>err && > > + test_must_be_empty err && > > + > > + for bad_header in "# pack-refs wit: peeled fully-peeled sorted " \ > > + "# pack-refs with traits: peeled fully-peeled sorted " \ > > + "# pack-refs with a: peeled fully-peeled" > > Instead of verifying thrice that we complain about bad header prefixes, > should we maybe replace two of these with instances where we check a > packed-refs file _without_ a header and one with capabilities that we > don't understand? >
I think we could add some tests to verify that we won't complain about above two cases where packed-refs file without a header and one with capabilities that we don't understand.
> Patrick