2025年6月4日 20:32，Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 写道： > > lidongyan <502024330056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> No, this test case should only fail when ’SANITIZE_LEAK’ is set. I heard >> that other developer call this type of test as prereq. So only when git is >> compiled with `-fsanitize=address` and `export ASAN_OPTION=detect_leaks=1` >> and without changes as >> >> - if (!cascade_pseudo_merges_1(bitmap_git, cb.base, roots_bitmap)) >> - bitmap_free(roots_bitmap); >> + cascade_pseudo_merges_1(bitmap_git, cb.base, roots_bitmap); >> + bitmap_free(roots_bitmap); >> >> This test case would fail. > > If the test tickles the code path that used to be broken (and > corrected by the patch), temporarily reverting only the code changes > to pack-bitmap.c and then this test (under leak sanitizer, of > course) should have failed. And if the test passed with such an > experiment, you would have noticed that something is wrong. > > But you didn't notice it and sent the patch, so I'd assume that you > saw such a test still failed. IOW, with "export" forgotten in the > test, the original (unfixed) code still leaked, without using the > bitmap traversal, right? > > Which was where my question came from. > > Or perhaps you didn't do that "is my test really tickling the bug I > fixed and makes the original code without my fix fail?" test? Which > also explains why lack of "export" was not noticed. The test case in v0 with “export” would fail, but test-lint in CI shouts. To make CI happy, I delete “export” and submit immediately. So I am sure now in v3 this test truly test what we want. But I make two mistakes that I haven’t pass all CI test before submit. I apologize for the oversight. I'll double-check my tests more carefully in the future to avoid similar issues. Thanks, Lidong
