From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3834C433B4 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 13:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE6761288 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 13:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231453AbhEKNc3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 May 2021 09:32:29 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35324 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231305AbhEKNc1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 May 2021 09:32:27 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C78ABC061574 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 06:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id k25so18146840iob.6 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 06:31:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Rf74hoRFJvashMeZM5ow7XtCVAkIKU3lngYzyXL77t8=; b=gqCU3T7/j6+UmbUyCpPl1XbilSwGWxticK5i/RRegj4Ee1lRjyEVh0P3Ncbpwvb7b+ AoBYdPxaCq2GIKcwBchc4qb0EvgHiFTJF39YWleCJzDCcRZn7y8mwt7QvVHO3F5ucD6z npItIWYnr8ewML1g12RetYCODChRLQhbZF5r+sEngbMum4RX5yfGhvVDbW/iWU5O0plP QUczUcfWej3EUlz7UlO5ssJZbQS9GLHzt5Ivvb3yCzkyNccDg0NtiVjKIGES+3t3JgBf 2+2xfqShYJrOKBMWGivynyNaSDP3B2H8iCqZhJfzMWBJHQrhfi1/jIbR8Pl+wXZGs+Hy JH0A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Rf74hoRFJvashMeZM5ow7XtCVAkIKU3lngYzyXL77t8=; b=XMJY889CU5Pq12fRAOOE3dGXHxmrIA2bO/0imsh4l+MrucA8dXe25OUw7hK1Z4kNIc Y/OP6/B0vAl8amwk9I099kZ1eadZ1VQYeL6ji16NB0T8ex9eZXVDFihZiI9VXY8Zodmv sZdrZHwnPePs3H0R+WoMofp/XJOeU4TDe98HrycZPClQCXO/bBbxvCR92h1LFmfJeQtP Lnlh9O3FGtEHokmWQI/wSAcxgqdlt4FCxf6sPtFHBvXYLYtcXFR5lJC1fJ0BzM4LeQKu 8oRy+l66WWCVZLtiHeVpS5FiTnoKUtTsQJ0Jm4WdV7BHkLjcOBWrRgqG6cwLfxYTTdxq vp3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532j5NCyMbt9hjUOQmeBe/svE5XZQ+v7K0zTb2x9HwoLH4JJlXY/ Pmn8JdMWXyGSAEcm24Bi7ybAbmGynM/iJw1BQMo7RD0HzbEVF1bf X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjzdFZMKWa63ORpuXORFJrDrS0EStOUSNDHcE5evD6vNHHo1qwb0nHDfHJND6r9xUWtFldW7/qmk6GmnMkCNU= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c00e:: with SMTP id u14mr19225707iol.106.1620739878212; Tue, 11 May 2021 06:31:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: ZheNing Hu Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 21:31:02 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] [GSOC] ref-filter: fix read invalid union member bug To: Junio C Hamano Cc: ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget , Git List , Johannes Schindelin Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > > Fine, I guess the reason for this mystery is I "push" this branch to github > > and you haven't done it. That may not be due to the platform. Because I > > can see no this bug happening when I use a new git repo without "git push", > > and I test in archlinux or deepin, this bug will happen in these environments. > > Sorry, you lost me. I was talking about what happens in the new > test you added to t6302 not failing as designed, and there shouldn't > be "I've pushed but you haven't pushed to GitHub" distinction. The > test is running in a brand-new repository just created for the sole > purpose of running the test after all. > Well, there are some expression problems here, I just want to express: This bug is only triggered after I push and Git adds some config during the push process. And then those config effort %(push) behavior. > So in short, the test script added to t6302 in the v4 patch was not > testing what it was supposed to be testing, as it didn't have the > configuration items related to %(push) atom necessary to trigger the > error? > Truly. > That I can believe. I was starting to worry if there was something > more subtle going on, but I am glad that it was only an uncooked > patch submitted without checking. > Me too, I want to complain a little bit: this bug is too difficult to locate. > > I guess you also saw this bug: > > > > BUG: ref-filter.c:1544: unhandled RR_* enum > > No, I didn't. I just tried to make sure the new test was truly > checking the existing breakage by partially reverting the code fix, > and saw that the new test did not fail. > I understand. > Thanks. Thanks. -- ZheNing Hu