| Message ID | 23d41343-54fd-46c6-9d78-369e8009fa0b@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | t0613: mark as leak-free | expand |
On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 08:46:38AM +0200, Rubén Justo wrote: > We can mark t0613 as leak-free: > [...] > I'm not sure why this simple change has fallen through the cracks. > Therefore, it's possible that I'm missing something. > > I'd appreciate if someone could double-check. I'd noticed it, too, while doing recent leak fixes. But since Patrick has been working on leaks and is the go-to person for reftables, I assumed he had already seen it and there was something clever going on. ;) I also get a passing result from t0612 (and I do have JGit available, so it actually runs the tests). I also get funny results from t4255, but I think we can ignore them. It's known breakages vanishing, which I guess is just some sub-program returning failure due to a leak and changing the test results. So anyway, this patch looks good to me, but probably we could squash t0612 into it, as well. -Peff
On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 11:57:59PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 08:46:38AM +0200, Rubén Justo wrote: > > > We can mark t0613 as leak-free: > > [...] > > I'm not sure why this simple change has fallen through the cracks. > > Therefore, it's possible that I'm missing something. > > > > I'd appreciate if someone could double-check. > > I'd noticed it, too, while doing recent leak fixes. But since Patrick > has been working on leaks and is the go-to person for reftables, I > assumed he had already seen it and there was something clever going on. ;) > > I also get a passing result from t0612 (and I do have JGit available, so > it actually runs the tests). I have no idea how JGit works, and I didn't have it installed either. But after a quick test, I can confirm that t0612 can also be marked as leak-free. I'll respond to this message shortly with a patch to fix that. > > I also get funny results from t4255, but I think we can ignore them. > It's known breakages vanishing, which I guess is just some sub-program > returning failure due to a leak and changing the test results. > > So anyway, this patch looks good to me, but probably we could squash > t0612 into it, as well. > > -Peff Thank you!
diff --git a/t/t0613-reftable-write-options.sh b/t/t0613-reftable-write-options.sh index e2708e11d5..b1c6c97524 100755 --- a/t/t0613-reftable-write-options.sh +++ b/t/t0613-reftable-write-options.sh @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_HASH GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME +TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true . ./test-lib.sh test_expect_success 'default write options' '
We can mark t0613 as leak-free: $ make test SANITIZE=leak GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true T=t0613-reftable-write-options.sh [...] *** t0613-reftable-write-options.sh *** in GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check mode, setting --invert-exit-code for TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK != true ok 1 - default write options ok 2 - disabled reflog writes no log blocks ok 3 - many refs results in multiple blocks ok 4 - tiny block size leads to error ok 5 - small block size leads to multiple ref blocks ok 6 - small block size fails with large reflog message ok 7 - block size exceeding maximum supported size ok 8 - restart interval at every single record ok 9 - restart interval exceeding maximum supported interval ok 10 - object index gets written by default with ref index ok 11 - object index can be disabled # passed all 11 test(s) 1..11 # faking up non-zero exit with --invert-exit-code make[2]: *** [Makefile:75: t0613-reftable-write-options.sh] Error 1 Do it. Signed-off-by: Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> --- I'm not sure why this simple change has fallen through the cracks. Therefore, it's possible that I'm missing something. I'd appreciate if someone could double-check. Thanks. t/t0613-reftable-write-options.sh | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)