Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] t/: port helper/test-sha1.c to unit-tests/t-hash.c

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 24, 2024, 15:49 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqo78vnrba.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD1=yjZEZWvMYKq1RyY8fMSHze4XcLbCZMSFhCLBheaM+w@mail.gmail.com>

Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>> Can we refactor this test to stop doing that? E.g., would it work if we
>> used git-hash-object(1) to check that SHA1DC does its thing? Then we
>> could get rid of the helper altogether, as far as I understand.
>
> It could perhaps work if we used git-hash-object(1) instead of
> `test-tool sha1` in t0013-sha1dc to check that SHA1DC does its thing,
> but we could do that in a separate patch or patch series.

Yeah, I think such a plan to make preliminary refactoring as a separate series, and then have another series to get rid of "test-tool sha1" (and "test-tool sha256" as well?) on top of it would work well.

Show 6 quoted lines

>> > +     if (!check(!!data)) {
>>
>> Is this double negation needed? Can't we just `if (!check(data))`?
>
> As far as I remember it is needed as check() is expecting an 'int'
> while 'data' is a 'void *'.

It might be easier to read by being more explicit, "data != NULL", if that is the case? check() is like assert(), i.e., "we expect data is not NULL", and if (!check("expected condition")) { guards an error handling block for the case in which the expectation is not met, right?