Re: [PATCH 2/4] fsck: check rev-index checksums

> On 4/18/2023 10:51 AM, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:27:57AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> >>>> +test_expect_success 'fsck catches invalid checksum' '
> >>>> +	revfile=$(ls corrupt/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.rev) &&
> >>>
> >>> Would this test be tighter if we introduced a sub-shell and cd'd into
> >>> "corrupt" here?
> >>
> >> corrupt_rev_and_verify does the subshell thing. Why should we do that
> >> here in the test?
> >
> > I was thinking that it might be more concise if you moved the subshell
> > to the test and out of corrupt_rev_and_verify. In addition to making
> > corrupt_rev_and_verify work in other instances where the repository
> > isn't required to be in a directory named "corrupt", I think it
> > simplifies the result.
>
> I don't think there is a good reason to allow using a different repo
> name. This is the only test that requires doing anything but calling
> corrupt_rev_and_verify with different parameters, so I think this
> makes the test script at the end of the series noisier.