From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 22:08:09 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] refs/reftable: add consistency checks Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20251006-228-reftable-introduce-consistency-checks-v5-0-f196d386214f@gmail.com> Karthik Nayak writes: > The reference subsystems allows for adding backend specific consistency > checks. These checks are run as part of 'git refs verify'. > > While the files backend has some consistency checks added, the reftable > backend currently has none. This series first tightens the reftable > backend to make it a little more strict and then also adds the required > infrastructure and some simple consistency checks. > > Since the reftable backend is treated as a library within the Git > codebase, we don't want to spillover our internal fsck implementation > into the library. At the same time, the fsck checks need to access > internal structures of the reftable library which aren't exposed outside > the library. > > So we solve this by adding a 'reftable/fsck.[ch]' which implements and > exposes a checker for the reftable library and returns specific errors > as defined by the library. We then add glue code within > 'refs/reftable-backend.c' to map these errors to errors which Git's fsck > implementation would understand. This allows us to separate concerns. > > We add the following consistency checks: > > 1. Check for validating the reftable table name. This is treated as a > warning since the reftable specification only suggests a table name > but doesn't enforce it. Also there is a difference in the table name > used in Git vs that in jGit. > > We tighten the reftable backend by raising a REFTABLE_FORMAT_ERROR error > when: > > 1. The 'tables.list' file doesn't have a trailing newline. > > --- > Changes in v5: > - Added documentation around the return value of 'parse_names()'. > - Added a test to validate that 'git refs verify' doesn't barf against > a clean working repository with multiple reftable tables. > - Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250926-228-reftable-introduce-consistency-checks-v4-0-c96fd8551c0d@gmail.com Looking good. Shall we declare victory and mark the topic for 'next' now? Thanks.