Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/6] hash-object: use fsck to check objects

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2023, 20:59 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqmt6f4l03.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <Y8hX+pIZUKXsyYj5@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

>   [1/6]: t1007: modernize malformed object tests

Obviously good.

>   [2/6]: t1006: stop using 0-padded timestamps
>   [3/6]: t7030: stop using invalid tag name

These two are pleasant to see and revealed what are "accepted" by mistake, quite surprisingly.

>   [4/6]: t: use hash-object --literally when created malformed objects

The --literally option was invented initially primarily to allow a bogus type of object (e.g. "hash-object -t xyzzy --literally") but I am happy to see that we are finding different uses. I wonder if these objects of known types but with syntactically bad contents can be "repack"ed from loose into packed?

>   [5/6]: fsck: provide a function to fsck buffer without object struct

Obvious, clean and very nice.

>   [6/6]: hash-object: use fsck for object checks