Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] t5000: test tar files that overflow ustar headers

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> The ustar format only has room for 11 (or 12, depending on
> some implementations) octal digits for the size and mtime of
> each file. After this, we have to add pax extended headers
> to specify the real data, and git does not yet know how to
> do so.

I am not a native speaker but "After" above made me hiccup.  I think
I am correct to understand that it means "after passing this limit",
aka "to represent files bigger or newer than these", but still it
felt somewhat strange.

> So as a prerequisite, we can feed the system tar a reference
> tarball to make sure it can handle these features. The
> reference tar here was created with:
>
>   dd if=/dev/zero seek=64G bs=1 count=1 of=huge
>   touch -d @68719476737 huge
>   tar cf - --format=pax |
>   head -c 2048
>
> using GNU tar. Note that this is not a complete tarfile, but
> it's enough to contain the headers we want to examine.

Cute.  I didn't remember they had @<seconds-since-epoch> format,
even though I must have seen what they do while working on 2c733fb2
(parse_date(): '@' prefix forces git-timestamp, 2012-02-02).

> +# See if our system tar can handle a tar file with huge sizes and dates far in
> +# the future, and that we can actually parse its output.
> +#
> +# The reference file was generated by GNU tar, and the magic time and size are
> +# both octal 01000000000001, which overflows normal ustar fields.
> +#
> +# When parsing, we'll pull out only the year from the date; that
> +# avoids any question of timezones impacting the result. 

... as long as the month-day part is not close to the year boundary.
So this explanation is insuffucient to convince the reader that
"that avoids any question" is correct, without saying that it is in
August of year 4147.

> +tar_info () {
> +	"$TAR" tvf "$1" | awk '{print $3 " " $4}' | cut -d- -f1
> +}

A blank after the shell function to make it easier to see the
boundary.

Seeing an awk piped into cut always makes me want to suggest a
single sed/awk/perl invocation.

> +# We expect git to die with SIGPIPE here (otherwise we
> +# would generate the whole 64GB).
> +test_expect_failure BUNZIP 'generate tar with huge size' '
> +	{
> +		git archive HEAD
> +		echo $? >exit-code
> +	} | head -c 4096 >huge.tar &&
> +	echo 141 >expect &&
> +	test_cmp expect exit-code
> +'

"head -c" is GNU-ism, isn't it?

"dd bs=1 count=4096" is hopefully more portable.

ksh signal death you already know about.  I wonder if we want to
expose something like list_contains as a friend of test_cmp.

	list_contains 141,269 $(cat exit-code)

Thanks.