Re: [PATCH 1/5] t5312: test object deletion code paths in a corrupted repository
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Mar 19, 2015, 21:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqvbhwheb6.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20150319205147.GA7775@peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 8 quoted lines
>> A safer check may be to pack and then make it missing, I guess, but >> I do not know if the difference matters. > > Yeah, I considered that. The trouble is that we are relying on the > earlier setup that made the object go missing. We cannot pack the refs > in the setup step, because the earlier tests are checking the loose-ref > behavior. So we would have to actually restore the object, pack, and > then re-delete it.
Yes, "restore pack redelete" was what I had in mind when I wondered such a sequence of extra steps is worth and the difference between such an approach and an approach to use a hand-crafted packed-refs file matters.