Re: [PATCH 2/2] t7900: clean up some broken refs

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2021, 18:24 UTC
Message-ID: <c6e486cc-11f7-5e10-50fd-5023f4ea086a@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YAWxh8O/XlxIfcv3@nand.local>

On 1/18/2021 11:04 AM, Taylor Blau wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 03:23:36AM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> This only shows up if you run the tests verbosely and watch the output.
>> It caught my eye and I _thought_ that there was a bug where 'git gc' or
>> 'git repack' wouldn't check 'refs/prefetch/' before pruning objects.
>> That is incorrect. Those commands do handle 'refs/prefetch/' correctly.
> 
> Do you think it would be worth checking that 'does not point to a valid
> object' doesn't appear in the output?

Perhaps, but I think this isn't an actually interesting behavior to test. It's really the test that was broken, not Git itself.

Show 31 quoted lines

>> All that is left is to clean up the tests in t7900-maintenance.sh to
>> remove these tags and refs that are not being repacked for the
>> incremental-repack tests.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
>> ---
>>  t/t7900-maintenance.sh | 5 +++++
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t7900-maintenance.sh b/t/t7900-maintenance.sh
>> index f9031cbb44b..6be9d42767a 100755
>> --- a/t/t7900-maintenance.sh
>> +++ b/t/t7900-maintenance.sh
>> @@ -256,6 +256,11 @@ test_expect_success 'incremental-repack task' '
>>  	HEAD
>>  	^HEAD~1
>>  	EOF
>> +
>> +	# Replace the object directory with this pack layout.
>> +	# However, it does not include all objects from the remotes.
>> +	rm -rf .git/refs/prefetch &&
>> +	rm -rf .git/refs/tags &&
> 
> Hmm. Makes sense, but this will certainly need to be updated to work
> with reftables, and it would break if you ran 'git pack-refs'.
> 
> Perhaps instead:
> 
>   git for-each-ref --format='delete %(refname)' \
>     refs/prefetch refs/tags >refs &&
>   git update-ref --stdin <refs

Deleting refs in a clean way is probably good to do. I'm guessing you didn't use a pipe because it can be hard to diagnose a failure in the chain? That's probably reasonable.

Thanks, -Stolee