[PATCH] rehabilitate some t5302 tests on 32-bit off_t machines

[PATCH] rehabilitate some t5302 tests on 32-bit off_t machines

[Nicolas Pitre]

Commit 8ed2fca458d085f12c3c6808ef4ddab6aa40ef14 was a bit draconian in 
skipping certain tests which should be perfectly valid even on platform 
with a 32-bit off_t.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
---
diff --git a/t/t5302-pack-index.sh b/t/t5302-pack-index.sh
index d93abc4..2a2878b 100755
--- a/t/t5302-pack-index.sh
+++ b/t/t5302-pack-index.sh
@@ -129,17 +129,15 @@ test_expect_failure \
     '[index v1] 6) newly created pack is BAD !' \
     'git verify-pack -v "test-4-${pack1}.pack"'
 
-test "$have_64bits" &&
 test_expect_success \
     '[index v2] 1) stream pack to repository' \
     'rm -f .git/objects/pack/* &&
-     git-index-pack --index-version=2,0x40000 --stdin < "test-1-${pack1}.pack" &&
+     git-index-pack --index-version=2 --stdin < "test-1-${pack1}.pack" &&
      git prune-packed &&
      git count-objects | ( read nr rest && test "$nr" -eq 1 ) &&
      cmp "test-1-${pack1}.pack" ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" &&
-     cmp "test-3-${pack1}.idx"  ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx"'
+     cmp "test-2-${pack1}.idx"  ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx"'
 
-test "$have_64bits" &&
 test_expect_success \
     '[index v2] 2) create a stealth corruption in a delta base reference' \
     '# this test assumes a delta smaller than 16 bytes at the end of the pack
@@ -152,17 +150,14 @@ test_expect_success \
 	  bs=1 count=20 conv=notrunc &&
        git cat-file blob "$delta_sha1" > blob_4 )'
 
-test "$have_64bits" &&
 test_expect_failure \
     '[index v2] 3) corrupted delta happily returned wrong data' \
     'cmp blob_3 blob_4'
 
-test "$have_64bits" &&
 test_expect_failure \
     '[index v2] 4) confirm that the pack is actually corrupted' \
     'git fsck --full $commit'
 
-test "$have_64bits" &&
 test_expect_failure \
     '[index v2] 5) pack-objects refuses to reuse corrupted data' \
     'git pack-objects test-5 <obj-list'



Nicolas

Re: [PATCH] rehabilitate some t5302 tests on 32-bit off_t machines

[Johannes Sixt]

On Thursday 15 November 2007 18:24, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Commit 8ed2fca458d085f12c3c6808ef4ddab6aa40ef14 was a bit draconian in
> skipping certain tests which should be perfectly valid even on platform
> with a 32-bit off_t.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t5302-pack-index.sh b/t/t5302-pack-index.sh
> index d93abc4..2a2878b 100755
> --- a/t/t5302-pack-index.sh
> +++ b/t/t5302-pack-index.sh
> @@ -129,17 +129,15 @@ test_expect_failure \
>      '[index v1] 6) newly created pack is BAD !' \
>      'git verify-pack -v "test-4-${pack1}.pack"'
>
> -test "$have_64bits" &&
>  test_expect_success \
>      '[index v2] 1) stream pack to repository' \
>      'rm -f .git/objects/pack/* &&
> -     git-index-pack --index-version=2,0x40000 --stdin 
< "test-1-${pack1}.pack" &&
> +     git-index-pack --index-version=2 --stdin <  "test-1-${pack1}.pack" && 
git prune-packed &&
>       git count-objects | ( read nr rest && test "$nr" -eq 1 ) &&
>       cmp "test-1-${pack1}.pack" ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" &&
> -     cmp "test-3-${pack1}.idx"  ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx"'
> +     cmp "test-2-${pack1}.idx"  ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx"'

Since you changed this test, I assume that the remaining tests that you put 
back failed only because this one did something wrong. If so, please mention 
that in the commit message.

-- Hannes

Re: [PATCH] rehabilitate some t5302 tests on 32-bit off_t machines

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote:

> On Thursday 15 November 2007 18:24, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Commit 8ed2fca458d085f12c3c6808ef4ddab6aa40ef14 was a bit draconian in
> > skipping certain tests which should be perfectly valid even on platform
> > with a 32-bit off_t.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/t/t5302-pack-index.sh b/t/t5302-pack-index.sh
> > index d93abc4..2a2878b 100755
> > --- a/t/t5302-pack-index.sh
> > +++ b/t/t5302-pack-index.sh
> > @@ -129,17 +129,15 @@ test_expect_failure \
> >      '[index v1] 6) newly created pack is BAD !' \
> >      'git verify-pack -v "test-4-${pack1}.pack"'
> >
> > -test "$have_64bits" &&
> >  test_expect_success \
> >      '[index v2] 1) stream pack to repository' \
> >      'rm -f .git/objects/pack/* &&
> > -     git-index-pack --index-version=2,0x40000 --stdin 
> < "test-1-${pack1}.pack" &&
> > +     git-index-pack --index-version=2 --stdin <  "test-1-${pack1}.pack" && 
> git prune-packed &&
> >       git count-objects | ( read nr rest && test "$nr" -eq 1 ) &&
> >       cmp "test-1-${pack1}.pack" ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" &&
> > -     cmp "test-3-${pack1}.idx"  ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx"'
> > +     cmp "test-2-${pack1}.idx"  ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx"'
> 
> Since you changed this test, I assume that the remaining tests that you put 
> back failed only because this one did something wrong. If so, please mention 
> that in the commit message.

It did nothing wrong.  It was simply relying on the product of a 
previous test that might still be disabled.


Nicolas

Re: [PATCH] rehabilitate some t5302 tests on 32-bit off_t machines

[Junio C Hamano]

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>
>> Since you changed this test, I assume that the remaining
>> tests that you put back failed only because this one did
>> something wrong. If so, please mention that in the commit
>> message.
>
> It did nothing wrong.  It was simply relying on the product of
> a previous test that might still be disabled.

Thanks for a fix-up and clarification.   Hannes, otherwise this
passed in your environment?

Re: [PATCH] rehabilitate some t5302 tests on 32-bit off_t machines

[Johannes Sixt]

On Thursday 15 November 2007 20:03, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> >> Since you changed this test, I assume that the remaining
> >> tests that you put back failed only because this one did
> >> something wrong. If so, please mention that in the commit
> >> message.
> >
> > It did nothing wrong.  It was simply relying on the product of
> > a previous test that might still be disabled.
>
> Thanks for a fix-up and clarification.   Hannes, otherwise this
> passed in your environment?

Yes, it passes. Ack.

-- Hannes