Hi Junio, On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > > > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > > > >> This patch series introduces detailed checking of tag objects when calling > >> git fsck, and also when transfer.fsckobjects is set to true. > >> > >> To this end, the fsck machinery is reworked to accept the buffer and size > >> of the object to check, and for commit and tag objects, we verify that the > >> buffers contain an end of header (i.e. an empty line) to guarantee that our > >> checks do not run beyond the buffer. > > > > Overall they looked sensible and I am trying to queue them on 'pu' > > for today's pushout. > > > > Thanks. > > I was expecting to see interesting interactions with the "oops, fsck > was not exiting with non-zero status in some cases" fix by Peff with > the patch 5/6 of this series that adds two new tests to t1450, but > because the breakage in these two cases are both only warning-events > and not error-events, I didn't prefix "git fsck" with test_must_fail > after all. There were a couple of issues, thanks for pointing out that I missed something. Short story: hash-object, fsck *and* pack-objects parse tag objects as they are encountered. Therefore, it would be a bit hard to test because we would have to emulate broken hash-object and pack-objects to generate a pack containing an invalid tag object. As a compromise, I now test for the warnings to make sure that the code path is triggered, but do not explicitly test with a pack that would make index-pack --strict *fail*. Okay? Ciao, Dscho P.S.: I squashed your changes in slightly modified form. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
