On 8 May 2018 at 01:40, brian m. carlson <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 12:24:13PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote: >> This could be more centralized at the top of the file, more likely to be >> noticed during a `make test` and easier to adapt in the future. Maybe >> something like this at the top of the file: >> >> if hash for storage is SHA-1 then >> knowntree=7bb943559a305bdd6bdee2cef6e5df2413c3d30a >> path0=f87290f8eb2cbbea7857214459a0739927eab154 >> .... >> else >> skip_all='unknown hash, but you really need to expand this test' >> # or even error out! >> fi > > As I mentioned in an earlier email, I plan to set an environment > variable for the algorithms in use and then do something like: > > test "$tree" = "$(test-tool hash-helper --output known-tree)" > > where "known-tree" is some key we can use to look up the SHA-1 or > NewHash value, and we've specified we want the output format (as opposed > to input format or on-disk format).
My first thought was, can't we introduce such a helper already now? It would not check with the environment, but would always output SHA-1 values. Thinking about it some more, maybe the exact usage/interface would be a bit volatile in the beginning, making it just as good an idea to gain some more experience and feeling first. >> When we add NewHash, we get to add an "else if". Otherwise, we'd be >> plugging in NewHash without testing some very basic stuff. >> >> Ok, so `skip_all` is quite hard, but skipping certain basic tests also >> feels really shaky. Adding a new hash algo without adapting this test >> should be a no-go, IMHO. > > I agree that this test needs to be updated for NewHash, but since we > haven't decided what that's going to be, it makes sense during > development to still test the rest of the code if possible so that we > know what does and doesn't work. > > This is a first step in making it obvious what doesn't work, and when we > know what the data is supposed to be, we can adjust it by fixing the > tests so that it works in all cases. A lingering feeling is, how do we find all these tests that we "hide" (for lack of a better word)? Maybe introduce some standardized comment keyword. Or use a more grep-friendly prereq-name. Or, if all occurances of "SHA1" (outside of t????-*sha*) are expected to go away real soon now, maybe this is not an issue. Anyway, thanks for putting up with me, and thanks a big lot for driving this major undertaking forward. Martin
