On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:10:21PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > What's the plan for oddball cases such as 66ae9a57b8 (t3404: rebase > -i: demonstrate short SHA-1 collision, 2013-08-23) which depend > implicitly upon SHA-1 without actually hardcoding any hashes? The test > added by 66ae9a57b8, for instance, won't start failing in the face of > NewHash, but it also won't be testing anything meaningful. > > Should such tests be dropped altogether? Should they be marked with a > 'SHA1' predicate or be annotated with a comment as being > SHA-1-specific? Something else?
My plan for these was to treat them the same way as for git rev-parse and git hash-object. Basically, for the moment, I had planned to ignore them, although I like the idea for a prerequisite to get the full testsuite passing in the interim. Ultimately, we could use some sort of lookup table or a test helper to translate them so that we get functionally equivalent results. t1512 is another great example of this same kind of test. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
