Re: [PATCH 00/10] Hash-independent tests (part 1)
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Mar 27, 2018, 14:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1803271629030.77@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz>
- In-Reply-To
- <20180325192055.841459-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Hi Brian,
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, brian m. carlson wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> This is a series to make our tests hash-independent. Many tests have > hard-coded SHA-1 values in them, and it would be valuable to express > these items in a hash-independent way for our hash transitions. > > The approach in this series relies on only three components for hash > independence: git rev-parse, git hash-object, and EMPTY_BLOB and > EMPTY_TREE. Because many of our shell scripts and test components > already rely on the first two, this seems like a safe assumption. > > For the same reason, this series avoids modifying tests that test these > components or their expected SHA-1 values. I expect that when we add > another hash function, we'll copy these tests to expose both SHA-1 and > NewHash versions. > > Many of our tests use heredocs for defining expected values. My > approach has been to interpolate values into the heredocs, as that > produces the best readability in my view. > > These tests have been tested using my "short BLAKE2b" series (branch > blake2b-test-hash) and have also been tested based off master. > > Comments on any aspect of this series are welcome, but opinions on the > approach or style are especially so.
Thank you for this patch series!
I reviewed all 10 patches, and while I cannot say anything about whether they miss any spot, they all look sensible and correct.
Thanks, Dscho