Re: [PATCH v4] fast-(import|export): improve on commit signature output format

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 4:55 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > This v4 is just about fixing a few bugs in the tests using the SHA-256
> > object format compared to the v3. (I had issues with CI tests on v3,
> > so I sent it without waiting for the results.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> I am not sure if "I am happy is either 1 or 256" is what you really
> want, though.  The test presumably knows what algorithm is being
> used during its run, so wouldn't you want to say more like "I know I
> used sha256, and I expect seeing sha256, ah, I see sha256 and even
> better I see no sha1, so I am very happy"?

Yeah, I agree it's better to have tests say things like "I know I used
sha256, and I expect to see sha256". So in v5 tests now use:

  test_grep -E "^gpgsig $GIT_DEFAULT_HASH x509" output

as "$GIT_DEFAULT_HASH" should be either "sha1" or "sha256" depending
on the current hash.

I am not sure "and even better I see no sha1" is worth it then though,
so I haven't added that.

> > There are no tests in this v4 and in v3 with both a SHA-1 and a
> > SHA-256 signature on the same commit though, as I am not sure yet how
> > to best generate a commit with such signatures. Suggestions welcome!
>
> Good point to fill potential gaps.  If we had such a commit, then
> would these tests say "I know I want both 1 and 256, and I do see
> one instance each of 1 and 256, so I am happy"?

There is a test with such a commit in the v5 I am about to send and
yeah it checks that there is one instance of 1 and 256.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux