Re: [PATCH 08/10] t-reftable-block: add tests for log blocks

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Aug 15, 2024, 09:41 UTC
Message-ID: <Zr3NMOQWYDOufHXg@tanuki>
In-Reply-To: <20240814121122.4642-9-chandrapratap3519@gmail.com>

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:33:16PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:

Show 43 quoted lines

> @@ -101,9 +101,95 @@ static void t_block_read_write(void)
>  		reftable_record_release(&recs[i]);
>  }
>  
> +static void t_log_block_read_write(void)
> +{
> +	const int header_off = 21;
> +	struct reftable_record recs[30];
> +	const size_t N = ARRAY_SIZE(recs);
> +	const size_t block_size = 2048;
> +	struct reftable_block block = { 0 };
> +	struct block_writer bw = {
> +		.last_key = STRBUF_INIT,
> +	};
> +	struct reftable_record rec = {
> +		.type = BLOCK_TYPE_LOG,
> +	};
> +	size_t i = 0;
> +	int n;
> +	struct block_reader br = { 0 };
> +	struct block_iter it = BLOCK_ITER_INIT;
> +	struct strbuf want = STRBUF_INIT;
> +
> +	REFTABLE_CALLOC_ARRAY(block.data, block_size);
> +	block.len = block_size;
> +	block.source = malloc_block_source();
> +	block_writer_init(&bw, BLOCK_TYPE_LOG, block.data, block_size,
> +			  header_off, hash_size(GIT_SHA1_FORMAT_ID));
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
> +		rec.u.log.refname = xstrfmt("branch%02"PRIuMAX , (uintmax_t)i);
> +		rec.u.log.update_index = i;
> +		rec.u.log.value_type = REFTABLE_LOG_UPDATE;
> +
> +		recs[i] = rec;
> +		n = block_writer_add(&bw, &rec);
> +		rec.u.log.refname = NULL;
> +		rec.u.log.value_type = REFTABLE_LOG_DELETION;
> +		check_int(n, ==, 0);
> +	}
> +
> +	n = block_writer_finish(&bw);
> +	check_int(n, >, 0);

Do we maybe want to rename `n` to `ret`? That's way more customary in our codebase.

Show 11 quoted lines

> +	block_writer_release(&bw);
> +
> +	block_reader_init(&br, &block, header_off, block_size, GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ);
> +
> +	block_iter_seek_start(&it, &br);
> +
> +	for (i = 0; ; i++) {
> +		int r = block_iter_next(&it, &rec);
> +		check_int(r, >=, 0);
> +		if (r > 0)
> +			break;

We can also reuse `n` (or `ret`) here, right?

> +		check(reftable_record_equal(&recs[i], &rec, GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ));
> +	}

One thing that this loop doesn't verify is whether we actually got the expected number of log records. It could be that the first iteration already returns `r > 0`, which is not our expectation. So we should likely add a check for `i == N` after the loop.

Patrick