Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] odb: use size_t for the length of objects to write

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Oct 30, 2026, 11:44 UTC
Message-ID: <auSDFRHpLy65PMF_@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <8fcb9f10f13962acd5cdac652bea8fc4164f2e78.1793352943.git.gitter.spiros@gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 10:58:50AM +0100, Elia Pinto wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> diff --git a/t/t1007-hash-object.sh b/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> index 463b38f990..0a89bbb455 100755
> --- a/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> +++ b/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> @@ -297,4 +297,17 @@ test_expect_success EXPENSIVE,SIZE_T_IS_64BIT \
>  	test_cmp expect actual
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success EXPENSIVE,SIZE_T_IS_64BIT \
> +		'write filtered files over 4GB correctly' '
> +	{ test -f big || test-tool genzeros $((5*1024*1024*1024)) >big; } &&
> +	test_oid large5GB >expect &&
> +	test_config filter.null-filter.clean "cat" &&
> +	echo "big filter=null-filter" >.gitattributes &&
> +	git hash-object -w -- big >actual &&
> +	test_cmp expect actual &&
> +	echo $((5*1024*1024*1024)) >expect &&

Isn't this the exact same as `big`? So...

> +	git cat-file -s $(cat actual) >actual &&

We shouldn't read from and write to the same file. Maybe write it to "actual.size" instead?

> +	test_cmp expect actual
> +'

... can't we `test_cmp big actual` here?

Also, it might make sense to use `test_cmp_bin ()` instead.

Patrick