From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5A01F453 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 23:08:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728397AbeJaIED (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2018 04:04:03 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:33484 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1727430AbeJaIED (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2018 04:04:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 28524 invoked by uid 109); 30 Oct 2018 23:08:35 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 23:08:35 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 5213 invoked by uid 111); 30 Oct 2018 23:07:51 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:07:51 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:08:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:08:33 -0400 From: Jeff King To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Git Mailing List , John Szakmeister , Dennis Kaarsemaker Subject: Re: Infinite loop regression in git-fsck in v2.12.0 Message-ID: <20181030230833.GA12950@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170113175944.tdbfqx3e4xhris7m@sigill.intra.peff.net> <878t2fkxrn.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <877ehzksjd.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <877ehzksjd.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:56:22PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > So maybe a good approach would be that we'd annotate all those test > > whose fsck fails with "this is how it should fail", and run those tests > > under GIT_TEST_FSCK=true, and GIT_TEST_FSCK=true would also be asserting > > that no tests other than those marked as failing the fsck check at the > > end fail it. > [...] > Jeff: Gotta turn in for the night, but maybe Something you're maybe > interested in carrying forward for this fix? It's not that much work to > mark up the failing tests, there's 10-20 of them from some quick > eyeballing. For this fix, I'd much rather add a specific test to the existing fsck tests. Otherwise, we're relying on what a bunch of other tests happen to be doing now, but there's little hope that they won't get refactored in a way that puts a gap in our test coverage. IOW, I think of things like GIT_TEST_FSCK as a kind of shotgun approach. They may find things, and we should fix them and make sure it runs clean. But ultimately, specific cases of interest should get their own tests. -Peff