Re: [PATCH v3 04/11] reftable/stack: verify that `reftable_stack_add()` uses auto-compaction
- From
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
- Date
- Dec 11, 2023, 20:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ZXdt17pN68tsmH1H@nand.local>
- In-Reply-To
- <5e27d0a5566d90969734e92984cfafe6048924f4.1702285387.git.ps@pks.im>
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 10:07:42AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
Show 46 quoted lines
> While we have several tests that check whether we correctly perform
> auto-compaction when manually calling `reftable_stack_auto_compact()`,
> we don't have any tests that verify whether `reftable_stack_add()` does
> call it automatically. Add one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
> ---
> reftable/stack_test.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/reftable/stack_test.c b/reftable/stack_test.c
> index 0644c8ad2e..52b4dc3b14 100644
> --- a/reftable/stack_test.c
> +++ b/reftable/stack_test.c
> @@ -850,6 +850,54 @@ static void test_reftable_stack_auto_compaction(void)
> clear_dir(dir);
> }
>
> +static void test_reftable_stack_add_performs_auto_compaction(void)
> +{
> + struct reftable_write_options cfg = { 0 };
> + struct reftable_stack *st = NULL;
> + struct strbuf refname = STRBUF_INIT;
> + char *dir = get_tmp_dir(__LINE__);
> + int err, i, n = 20;
> +
> + err = reftable_new_stack(&st, dir, cfg);
> + EXPECT_ERR(err);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i <= n; i++) {
> + struct reftable_ref_record ref = {
> + .update_index = reftable_stack_next_update_index(st),
> + .value_type = REFTABLE_REF_SYMREF,
> + .value.symref = "master",
> + };
> +
> + /*
> + * Disable auto-compaction for all but the last runs. Like this
> + * we can ensure that we indeed honor this setting and have
> + * better control over when exactly auto compaction runs.
> + */
> + st->disable_auto_compact = i != n;
> +
> + strbuf_reset(&refname);
> + strbuf_addf(&refname, "branch-%04d", i);
> + ref.refname = refname.buf;Does the reftable backend take ownership of the "refname" field? If so, then I think we'd want to use strbuf_detach() here to avoid a double-free() when you call strbuf_release() below.
Thanks, Taylor