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
