Re: [PATCH 1/4] t0080: mark as leak-free

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2024, 22:15 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa5onhjm4.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <4adfcba4-0f2b-44f5-a312-97f00f979435@gmail.com>

Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> This test is leak-free since it was added in e137fe3b29 (unit tests: add
> TAP unit test framework, 2023-11-09)
>
> Let's mark it as leak-free to make sure it stays that way (and to reduce
> noise when looking for other leak-free scripts after we fix some leaks).

For other tests in this series, that rationale is a very sensible thing, but does it apply to this one?

The point of the t-basic tests is to ensure the lightweight unit test framework that requires nothing from Git behaves (and keeps behaving) sensibly. The point of running t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] tests under leak sanitizer is to exercise production Git code to catch leaks in Git code.

So it is not quite clear if we even want to run this t0080 under leak sanitizer to begin with. t0080 is a relatively tiny test, but do we even want to spend leak sanitizer cycles on it? I dunno.

Show 17 quoted lines

> Signed-off-by: Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com>
> ---
>  t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh b/t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh
> index 961b54b06c..6657c114a3 100755
> --- a/t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh
> +++ b/t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>  
>  test_description='Test the output of the unit test framework'
>  
> +TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
>  . ./test-lib.sh
>  
>  test_expect_success 'TAP output from unit tests' '