On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:15:06PM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote: > On 12 February 2018 at 10:56, Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Martin Ågren <martin.ag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6 February 2018 at 03:13, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:28:10PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > >>>> I learned SANITIZE=leak today! It not only catches this but also "dst". > >>>> > >>>> Jeff is there any ongoing effort to make the test suite pass with > >>>> SANITIZE=leak? My t2038 passed, so I went ahead with the full test > >>>> suite and saw so many failures. I did see in your original mails that > >>>> you focused on t0000 and t0001 only.. > >>> > >>> Yeah, I did those two scripts to try to prove to myself that the > >>> approach was good. But I haven't really pushed it any further. > >>> > >>> Martin Ågren (cc'd) did some follow-up work, but I think we still have a > >>> long way to go. > >> > >> Agreed. :-) > > > > Should we mark the test files that pass SANITIZE=leak and run as a sub > > testsuite? This way we can start growing it until it covers everything > > (unlikely) and make sure people don't break what's already passed. > > > > Of course I don't expect everybody to run this new make target with > > SANITIZE=leak. Travis can do that for us and hopefully have some way > > to tell git@vger about new breakages. > > Makes sense to try to make sure that we don't regress leak-free tests. I > don't know what our Travis-budget looks like, but I would volunteer to > run something like this periodically using my own cycles. > > My experience with the innards of our Makefiles and test-lib.sh is > non-existant, but from a very cursory look it seems like something as > simple as loading GIT_SKIP_TESTS from a blacklist-file might do the > trick.
Yeah my first throught was something along that line too. But maybe it's nicer to mark a test file leak-free like this: -- 8< -- diff --git a/t/t2028-worktree-move.sh b/t/t2028-worktree-move.sh index 459f676683..1446f075b7 100755 --- a/t/t2028-worktree-move.sh +++ b/t/t2028-worktree-move.sh @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@ test_description='test git worktree move, remove, lock and unlock' +test_leak_free=yes + . ./test-lib.sh test_expect_success 'setup' ' -- 8< -- And we can run these test files with a new option --leak-check (or something like that, we already support a similar option --valgrind). Most of the work will be in test-lib.sh. If we detect --leak-check and test_leak_free is not set, we skip the whole file. In the far far far future when all files have test_leak_free=yes, we can flip the default and delete these lines. It would be nice if test-lib.sh can determine if 'git' binary is built with SANITIZE=yes, but I think we can live without it. > I could try to look into it in the next couple of days. Have fun :) Let me know if you give up though, I'll give it a shot. -- Duy