Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] t: prepare for GIT_TEST_WRITE_REV_INDEX

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 06:37:38PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:

> diff --git a/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh b/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh
> index 297de502a9..2fc3aadbd1 100755
> --- a/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh
> +++ b/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh
> @@ -710,8 +710,9 @@ test_expect_success 'expire respects .keep files' '
>  		PACKA=$(ls .git/objects/pack/a-pack*\.pack | sed s/\.pack\$//) &&
>  		touch $PACKA.keep &&
>  		git multi-pack-index expire &&
> -		ls -S .git/objects/pack/a-pack* | grep $PACKA >a-pack-files &&
> -		test_line_count = 3 a-pack-files &&
> +		test_path_is_file $PACKA.idx &&
> +		test_path_is_file $PACKA.keep &&
> +		test_path_is_file $PACKA.pack &&

I find the post-image here more readable than the original. It probably
runs faster, too (zero processes instead of three).

> --- a/t/t5325-reverse-index.sh
> +++ b/t/t5325-reverse-index.sh
> @@ -3,6 +3,10 @@
>  test_description='on-disk reverse index'
>  . ./test-lib.sh
>  
> +# The below tests want control over the 'pack.writeReverseIndex' setting
> +# themselves to assert various combinations of it with other options.
> +sane_unset GIT_TEST_WRITE_REV_INDEX

I think we had a discussion a while ago about sane_unset outside of an
&&-chain, where it does nothing that regular "unset" would not. But I
don't know if we reached any kind of conclusion. I actually argued that
it was fine in:

  https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200630185536.GA1888406@coredump.intra.peff.net/

So I guess I should probably stand by that. ;)

> --- a/t/t5604-clone-reference.sh
> +++ b/t/t5604-clone-reference.sh
> @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'clone repo with symlinked or unknown files at obje
>  	for raw in $(ls T*.raw)
>  	do
>  		sed -e "s!/../!/Y/!; s![0-9a-f]\{38,\}!Z!" -e "/commit-graph/d" \
> -		    -e "/multi-pack-index/d" <$raw >$raw.de-sha-1 &&
> +		    -e "/multi-pack-index/d" -e "/rev/d" <$raw >$raw.de-sha-1 &&

This one is less readable than before. :) I'm not sure how to really
improve that, though.

> --- a/t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh
> +++ b/t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh
> @@ -851,8 +851,10 @@ test_expect_success 'part of packfile response provided as URI' '
>  	test -f h2found &&
>  
>  	# Ensure that there are exactly 6 files (3 .pack and 3 .idx).
> -	ls http_child/.git/objects/pack/* >filelist &&
> -	test_line_count = 6 filelist
> +	ls http_child/.git/objects/pack/*.pack >packlist &&
> +	ls http_child/.git/objects/pack/*.idx >idxlist &&
> +	test_line_count = 3 idxlist &&
> +	test_line_count = 3 packlist
>  '

Hmm. Too bad we can't rely on shell brace expansion, as:

  ls http_child/.git/objects/pack/*.{pack,idx}

would be more readable. You could still do it in a single "ls" by
writing out both arguments manually, but it's probably not that
important.

>  test_expect_success 'fetching with valid packfile URI but invalid hash fails' '
> @@ -905,8 +907,10 @@ test_expect_success 'packfile-uri with transfer.fsckobjects' '
>  		clone "$HTTPD_URL/smart/http_parent" http_child &&
>  
>  	# Ensure that there are exactly 4 files (2 .pack and 2 .idx).
> -	ls http_child/.git/objects/pack/* >filelist &&
> -	test_line_count = 4 filelist
> +	ls http_child/.git/objects/pack/*.pack >packlist &&
> +	ls http_child/.git/objects/pack/*.idx >idxlist &&
> +	test_line_count = 2 idxlist &&
> +	test_line_count = 2 packlist
>  '

Likewise. But...

> diff --git a/t/t6500-gc.sh b/t/t6500-gc.sh
> index 4a3b8f48ac..f76586f808 100755
> --- a/t/t6500-gc.sh
> +++ b/t/t6500-gc.sh
> @@ -106,17 +106,17 @@ test_expect_success 'auto gc with too many loose objects does not attempt to cre
>  	test_commit "$(test_oid obj2)" &&
>  	# Our first gc will create a pack; our second will create a second pack
>  	git gc --auto &&
> -	ls .git/objects/pack | sort >existing_packs &&
> +	ls .git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack | sort >existing_packs &&
>  	test_commit "$(test_oid obj3)" &&
>  	test_commit "$(test_oid obj4)" &&
>  
>  	git gc --auto 2>err &&
>  	test_i18ngrep ! "^warning:" err &&
> -	ls .git/objects/pack/ | sort >post_packs &&
> +	ls .git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack | sort >post_packs &&
>  	comm -1 -3 existing_packs post_packs >new &&
>  	comm -2 -3 existing_packs post_packs >del &&
>  	test_line_count = 0 del && # No packs are deleted
> -	test_line_count = 2 new # There is one new pack and its .idx
> +	test_line_count = 1 new # There is one new pack
>  '

This one is making the test a bit looser (it would miss a case where we
somehow failed to generate the .idx). That seems like an unlikely bug,
but I wonder if we can keep the original behavior. I guess:

  ls .git/objects/pack/*.pack \
     .git/objects/pack/*.idx |
     sort >post_packs

would work?

>  test_expect_success 'gc --no-quiet' '
> diff --git a/t/t9300-fast-import.sh b/t/t9300-fast-import.sh
> index 3d17e932a0..8f1caf8025 100755
> --- a/t/t9300-fast-import.sh
> +++ b/t/t9300-fast-import.sh
> @@ -1632,7 +1632,10 @@ test_expect_success 'O: blank lines not necessary after other commands' '
>  	INPUT_END
>  
>  	git fast-import <input &&
> -	test 8 = $(find .git/objects/pack -type f | grep -v multi-pack-index | wc -l) &&
> +	ls -la .git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack >packlist &&
> +	ls -la .git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack >idxlist &&
> +	test_line_count = 4 idxlist &&
> +	test_line_count = 4 packlist &&

Another case where I don't think we're losing anything (actually, we are
gaining just slightly; if a bug somehow created 6 packs and 2 idx files,
we'd now notice!).

-Peff